How We Read Rings of Power

[Michael Murry]

I truly appreciate Bêthberry's thread-opening post entitled How We Read Rings of Power although I think the word "View" would more accurately distinguish film-watching from book-reading: two very different mental and emotional -- if not sensory -- activities.

The post begins with two quoted observations.

(1) Originally Posted by Galadriel55: "I am very much in agreement with the general idea of both points. We very much do bring along baggage of expectations to any adaptation, and it can't not colour our opinion of it to some extent."

(2) Bêthberry's response: "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."

Again, to stress the nature of reading, we have this famous observation:

“Tis the good reader that makes the good book; in every book he finds passages which seem confidences or asides hidden from all else and unmistakenly meant for his ear; the profit of books is according to the sensibility of the reader; the profoundest thought or passion sleeps as in a mine, until it is discovered by an equal mind and heart.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

Then, with respect to watching or just looking, this from the director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, generally considered the best Star Trek movie:

"All the traditional artistic venues -- literature, music, painting – they exercise a good deal of their impact by virtue of what they leave out. A painting does not move. Music has no image. In each case, it is the willing and unskilled participation of the imagination on the part of the viewing listener that completes the work of art. The painting moves when it meets your eye, and so forth. Only movies, the twentieth century art medium has the hideous capacity to do it all for you. And in doing so, it tends to render the audience passive [emphasis added]. The great commercial directors who make movies are taught to put everything in. And the result is that sometimes I find myself sitting at these movies which are visually stunning. Every image is perfect. There is no distinction in priority between what is an important image and what is an unimportant image. It's all perfect. Everything is in it [emphasis added]. And, as a director, I'm always looking to leave things out." ― Nicholas Meyer

Now, I have not read any text -- which I assume would mean the script -- of The Rings of Power television series, so I have nothing to work with there. Nor have I sat passively in front of a television display letting visual images and sound wash over me, manipulating my senses and emotions -- over which I would rather keep control if at all possible. But I do read the text written by those here who have voluntarily subjected themselves to viewing all the sounds and images, whether passively and uncritically -- as the studio and advertisers no doubt hope -- or more actively, maintaining an intellectual and emotional distance from the intended manipulation. My thanks to those who have viewed the television series so that I can read what they have to report about the experience.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

I truly appreciate Bêthberry's thread-opening post entitled How We Read Rings of Power although I think the word "View" would more accurately distinguish film-watching from book-reading: two very different mental and emotional -- if not sensory -- activities.

The post begins with two quoted observations.

(1) Originally Posted by Galadriel55: "I am very much in agreement with the general idea of both points. We very much do bring along baggage of expectations to any adaptation, and it can't not colour our opinion of it to some extent."

(2) Bêthberry's response: "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."

Again, to stress the nature of reading, we have this famous observation:



Then, with respect to watching or just looking, this from the director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, generally considered the best Star Trek movie:



Now, I have not read any text -- which I assume would mean the script -- of The Rings of Power television series, so I have nothing to work with there. Nor have I sat passively in front of a television display letting visual images and sound wash over me, manipulating my senses and emotions -- over which I would rather keep control if at all possible. But I do read the text written by those here who have voluntarily subjected themselves to viewing all the sounds and images, whether passively and uncritically -- as the studio and advertisers no doubt hope -- or more actively, maintaining an intellectual and emotional distance from the intended manipulation. My thanks to those who have viewed the television series so that I can read what they have to report about the experience.

Where to begin? Well, with literary and cinematic theory, which use "text" as a metaphor for anything which is conceptualised as conveying meaning. These meanings are then interpreted. This is a relatively recent (well, in the last fifty years or so) meaning of the word "text" so perhaps you can be forgiven if you aren't aware of it, especially if you don't know much critical theory.

Oxford Reference:

film text (text)

The internal structure and organization of any one film; or simply a film wherever it is conceptualized as a system of meanings. In literary theory, the use of the term ‘text’ (whose original meaning is tissue, or weave) in relation to, say, a novel signals that the work is being treated as a constellation of meanings rather than as an imitation of reality—as construction ....

Open Oregon Educational Resources, "What is a text?"

In academic terms, a text is anything that conveys a set of meanings to the person who examines it. You might have thought that texts were limited to written materials, such as books, magazines, newspapers, and ‘zines (an informal term for magazine that refers especially to fanzines and webzines). Those items are indeed texts—but so are movies, paintings, television shows, songs, political cartoons, online materials, advertisements, maps, works of art, and even rooms full of people. If we can look at something, explore it, find layers of meaning in it, and draw information and conclusions from it, we’re looking at a text.

Gary Gillard in Film as Text:

The notion of 'film as text' is a metaphor drawn from the idea of reading a book. It suggests that in many ways reading a book is like watching a film, and that we might take some of the things we know about the one and apply them to the other....

Our metaphor (film as text) means that in both cases, book and film, we can 'read' the story, both in the sense of taking it in as it goes along and in that of being able to hold 'all' of it in our minds, after taking it in, for evaluation, analysis and enjoyment. The various chapters in this book are about these last activities, considering films after we've 'read' them, and talking about our 'readings' of them.

The word 'text' comes from Latin and has to do with weaving. The idea is that there are several stories and ideas in a given book or film, usually associated with several people, and that these cross over each other and join to create something (in our minds) a bit like a weaving. The different strands seem to combine to make a 'whole' novel or movie, although we can still see and make out the different strands if we wish (without pulling the weaving apart).

I could go on, but I think you'd get the picture from these.