It really is refreshing to see how calm the discussion is here. I feel so disappointed by the discourse elsewhere, with self-righteous, outraged defenses of Tolkien made by people who are either ignorantly or wilfully misinterpreting the source texts. And then there are the death threats to Tolkien scholars. It's gross. I'm so tired of people trotting out the, "But it's a mythology for England!" defense while striping it from its context, or decrying the notion of people of color playing elves when some of the texts themselves allow that interpretation. It's tiring. I see bewildered fans saying, "Oh, I'm sure it will get better after the next trailer, or if critics like it!" After years of Discovery's fandom menace, it's clear that won't happen. Anyway, to the fun stuff. The situation with the beards! Prior to the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote in 1951 that dwarves "have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike," and that they are virtually indistinguishable (see The War of the Jewels); however, in the published appendices to Rings, the reference to female dwarves having beards is omitted, while the reference to them looking alike is maintained. Later, around 1972-3, Tolkien later commented of beards, "All male dwarves had them," emphasis Tolkien's (see The Nature of Middle Earth), which implies that some or all dwarven women might be beardless. I think I have that right, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. The point is that Tolkien changed this mind about many things over time, and he left many details unclear. The people making this show have a lot of room to play as a result, contrary to the absolute certainty with which some outraged corners of the internet have called out choices made for the new series. I'm a strong proponent of the idea that stories are meant to be retold and reimagined, and that they are always made by and for those who are present at the time (not people 70 years ago), and that alone is reason enough to justify most changes, but there's room to have beards or no beards within the interpretive space given by Tolkien's own words, regardless. Looking forward to the series. Sorry for the rant. I love these books. I love stories. It's hard not to feel broken by the ugliness happening elsewhere right now. I'm glad for this place. Edit: I see many complaints out there about Elrond and other elves having short hair. But is there any reference anywhere in Tolkien to suggest that long hair was common? Other than that one Glorfindel comment? I'm not up on elf hair. Personally, I vastly prefer the short hair to the stringy elf hair in the Jackson films, but to each their own, of course!
All texts are fluid in adaptation. That’s the way of things. That’s always been the way of things. Always will be. And that’s fine. Licencees pay for the right and hire creatives to, you know, be creative. “They should be beholden to the source” is an easy thing to say. But anyone who’s ever been in that chair has changed something. Wait and see how it’s pulled off has always been my philosophy.
Hell sometimes there are clear incorrect statements in the source material that may be fixed when it's adapted. Someday when Star Wars is remade for instance there should be no forced rule that Han Solo has to incorrectly give a measurement of distance when it should instead be a measurement of time for the Kessel Run
This is the important point. Tolkien's ideas about Middle-earth were never truly fixed. He was always rethinking the world, even after The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were in print. Hell, he started a complete rewrite of The Hobbit to make it cohere better with The Lord of the Rings. On top of that, The Lord of the Rings itself makes a case for its own narrative to be questioned, as it purports to be a manuscript written long ago, copied many times, and translated into English. This raises questions. This is the version of the story survived in the Red Book, but is this the story? Was it redacted and rewritten as it was copied over the years? Are there interpolations as with New Testament texts (notably the Pauline letters) or other ancient manuscripts (like the Testimonium Flavium)? Tolkien himself makes the argument not to take The Lord of the Rings at face value, so alternate interpretations, either thorugh Peter Jackson or Amazon or even the myriad Russian rewrites and sequels, are valid. Shadows of Morder and Shadows of War, especially Sexy Shelob, may be a step too far, though.
Not unlike The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and how the story evolves with each medium (audio, print, television, film, stage, comic books, computer games, etc.). Not the exact same parallel but similar idea.
Which is one of the things I adore about Tolkien. I have always loved how, when confronted with a contradiction in his own writing, he would seek explanation within the secondary world. That always added richness, I thought. I remember reading the first few chapters of Tolkien's abandoned Lord of the Rings-style rewrite of The Hobbit and being so intrigued by the idea of both versions coexisting in one universe. For me, part of the delight of seeing the Second Age brought to life is that its textual records are incomplete, contradictory, and full of gaps; it's an era that feels full of half-glimpsed stories. This series will just be one more set of hands retelling the imagined ur-story lurking behind it all. I like the intertextuality.
This is why it bugs me when the hard core fans have a fit if a sequel by a different creator, or an adaptation, doesn't follow the exact words the creator originally wrote, the creators themselves don't even follow what they wrote that closely when they do sequels or adaptations themselves. Creators are constantly ignoring or retconing stuff in previous works. Hell, Micheal Chrichton killed Ian Malcom in the first Jurrasic Park book, but then he was suddenly alive again when he did the Lost World book. And I haven't read the book, but I got the impression that there were some pretty big differences between the Good Omens Amazon Prime series and the book, and Neil Gaiman wrote both versions.
I could care less about most of the complaints but the beard thing bugs me because we know the only reason they removed the beards is they thought the women wouldn't look sexy with beards. Which to me feels like your watering things down for mainstream appeal. It's like how Chibnall's idea of fixing something that didn't need fixing on Dr Who was take away the quirks and eccentric stuff of Doctor Who and basically turn the show into a standard Sci Fi show. Is this show really going to be Lord of the Rings or is just going to be a generic action show set in a fantasy setting lacking the details that people liked about Lord of the Rings.
Also, many, many people had been waiting a long time for a decent adaptation of the novels. The most important element was that technology had evolved to the point where it was possible to make a proper adaptation. And it took somebody who had a serious understanding of Tolkien's works AND who was a talented film maker in order to do it. The attention to detail that Jackson put into making that trilogy is unrivalled.
This is my question--is this really going to take Tolkien's world and create something faithful even if there are some details that are altered--or is it a generic fantasy that is just using the name and broad concepts. Are the creators paying the same attention to detail that Jackson did?
For all we know, that Dwarf has had her beard shaved as punishment for something. Can’t know until the show is on.
Oh, so you do care, if perhaps only a little. While I'm enjoying the histrionic wailing and gnashing of teeth on YouTube - I haven't looked elsewhere - I wonder when they'll tire of the ridiculous faux rage about a TV show. If it turns out to be as crap as they opine, I'll just stop watching. Problem solved. If it's a disaster for Amazon, perhaps they'll learn from their mistakes.
I never have never understood why people have wailed that a new movie ruined an older movie, or ruined a book. The book/s is still there for them to read, the older movie is still there to watch. When I was a little girl I loved the version of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ that was illustrated by Libico Maraja. The Dorothy in that book was my Dorothy so when I finally got to see the movie I did not like it at all. I thought movie Dorothy was too old and was nothing like my Dorothy. So I went back to loving my book and I hardly ever think of the movie at all. I let other people enjoy the movie as millions seem to do. I was able to do that as a 9 year old but adults cannot be content to just stick to Tolkien’s books and ignore the TV series.
I gather this new series is basically "fan fiction" based on the appendices in The Lord of the Rings. It seems what little Tolkien did write about the Second Age in The Silmarillion is off limits without the approval of the Tolkien estate. I can see why "true fans" might be upset as perhaps they want a series that faithfully fills out the history as Tolkien would have imagined it. I suspect the executives and show runners employed by Amazon aren't really interested in that although Bezos supposedly is a Tolkien aficionado. If he's displeased by the result, I imagine some people will be looking for new jobs come September.
I read somewhere (not in the Vanity Fair article but something after that) that they do have access to The Silmarillion but on a case by case basis pending approval from the Tolkien estate.
Hence they could use the two trees and Valinor in the promotional image. I suspect the rights to detailed story lines might be off limits despite the huge sum that Amazon reportedly paid. It's decades since I read the relevant part of The Silmarillion (Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age) but I seem to recall it was short and sketchy. I have never read Unfinished Tales but I expect it's definitely off limits except by negotiation as well. More outrage here:
If The Rings of Power is successful enough I can see the Tolkien Estate opening up the rights to The Silmarillion, with the same conditions they seem to have granted the current rights to Amazon. (Basically they have to stick to the events established in the books, no changing of the canon, etc.)
The history of Middle-earth in the Second Age from 500 to 3441 is mostly concerned with the rings of power and the rise of Sauron. There isn't a lot of detail in The Silmarillion (about 20 pages worth). Nothing much else of significant interest happens between 1 and 500 SA apart from the founding of the Grey Havens and the first settling of Númenor.
Bearded female dwarves were a non-entity in the entire writings of Tolkien, getting at best a single line or so. There were no beloved female dwarf characters, no stories featuring them in any way, nothing for anyone to be attached to aside from one or two brief lines over several thousand pages. The idea that not having them in 'waters it down' or reduces it to 'generic fantasy' is ridiculous as is all the faux outrage over this. The changes Jackson made to characters like Aragorn (he's not reluctant to fulfill his destiny, nor besties with Legolas), Gimili (turning him into little more than comic relief) Faramir ( giving him daddy issues and making him unable to withstand the lure of the Ring as he did in the book) Merry and Pippen (making them, like Gimili, overly goofy comic relief) are far more egregious than bearded dwarf ladies. Yet everyone is okay with that.