Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel55
First and foremost:
Indeed. It's well and good to say you'll be starting to read/watch something without any expectations, but the truth is, you always bring some expectations, even if you think you know nothing about what you're about to see. Not judging books by their covers is not really a thing; best you can do is give it a chance in spite of the cover. But "covers" are also created with the knowledge that they will be the first impression, they set the tone that determines the audience (perhaps based on the audiences' pre-existing preconceptions) and creates the audience's expectations. It is quite possible that the cover is not representative, but, on the whole, covers are meant to be judged: that is, in fact, their purpose. The show's "cover" has been the various trailers, but also the PR campaign they've been doing these past few months. And while I had mixed thoughts on the trailers and have been able to reconcile the negative knee-jerk emotions, I had largely negative reactions to their PR position which just sunk me into deeper disappointment. I started out with a pretty positive outlook of how this could be a good semi-Tolkien fanfic-y fantasy show, which has gradually deteriorated the more they talked about it. So their "cover" has effectively filtered me into a subset of the population who would not be particularly lured by the product, and who does not expect to find the product much to their liking. What am I going to do about it? Since I wouldn't be paying any more or less money either way, I will still watch it to give it that try. I will be ranting about all the things that bug me most before I watch the show, to get it out of my system and come in with as little of a negative bias as possible. I am purposefully spoiling the first two episodes and reading people's commentary here so that I would be prepared for the bad elements and look forward to the good ones, so that I would be prepared to look past things like awful haircut choices to try and appreciate the larger story. And then I will see how I feel about it after the (unspoiled) third episode, by which point I expect the story to start unfolding sufficiently to be past the obligatory "intro stage" and start evolving into a more concrete form. Then after that I plan to post my impressions on the corresponding threads, and loop back here with more of a self-reflection on what "expectation baggage" might have been behind which reaction and how that changed from reading the comments and then seeing the show itself.  |
My apologies for a tardy reply but events in RL have kept me away from the internet and not given me time to make a thoughtful reply.
I will go back to a comment I made to Michael Murray, to put things in context: >>>"It is far more than mere "baggage". It is one's philosophical predispositions, which can often operate seemingly unconsciously but not necessarily so, that predetermine how one reads a text.".<<<
I will limit my comments specifically to the complaints about Galadriel to explain what I mean, which is not that one can come to a text without "aforethought". It is about how readers or critics construct, invent, or fabricate a conception about a character. Most of these critics, who are largely but not exclusively, male, claim to be restoring Tolkien's depiction of Galadriel. They aren't because what they are doing is presenting a construction of her that prioritises their own political ideology or imposes it on Tolkien's depiction.
The complaints about "acshun girl" and sword Gal use a terminology and point of view that has nothing to do with Tolkien but belong to current or contemporary thought that objects to new imaginative readings. These thoughts post date Tolkien's death, so they involve events he could not have commented on. We can of course make suppositions about what he might have thought, but they remain suppositions.
The complaints about sword Gal construct a contemporary reading of the character and do not return us to or salvage a pure historical reading. To demonstrate how these complaints are enmeshed with the readers/viewers own thoughts--objections to new imaginative depictions of women--I will ask why there are no objections to another aspect of the Galadriel in RoP that does not appear in Tolkien's writing, either his fiction or his prose comments, the scene where she creates an origami swan ship. (At least I haven't heard of any and that silence or paucity speaks for itself.)
Why is sword Gal so objectionable but not origami Gal?
Origami Gal is not so directly or obviously related to contemporary visions of women's agency. It is creative play and as such not as threatening as warrior action and can more easily be accommodated into the anti-woman ideology of the complainants. Yet it is wise to recall that her first name, given by her mother, was "Nerwen", that is, "man-maiden" and in her athletic feats she matched those of other athletes, who presumably were male. The hair thing is a later name related symbolically to the colours of the two trees.
It is this act of ideological construction I was referring to when I rejected the claim of "baggage". It is much more than the biases we pick up from the epitexts or pretexts (I use these terms from their use in literary theory); it is a prophylactic action rather than historical recovery. It does not bring us back to what Tolkien intended but mires us in current culture wars.