How We Read Rings of Power

[Galadriel55]

First and foremost:

Originally Posted by Legate

I personally would cheer for the plot twist that he is the Balrog.

++Legate for script writer.

Originally Posted by Bb

Oh my, you are quite angsty aren't you? Will you be calling down a fatwa on the showrunners and writers even before you view any of the series? Because really you are not here talking knowledgeably about the actual TV series itself but about the epitexts which preceded it. I guess this is your statement about what you will bring to viewing the series, but it really does not tell us anything about the series itself.

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.

[mhagain]

All I've ever wanted was for it to not be crap. I think it's still too early, after only two episodes, to form any kind of judgement in that regard, and I'm happy to stick with it to the end of the first season at least.

As for it's status as fanfic - well, what did people actually expect? Did people even know what the source material was actually like? Did people even read Tolkien? Put it this way - even if Amazon had full unrestricted access to all of the Second Age material, a show constrained to only what Tolkien wrote would be a 1-hour history documentary. Of course there was going to be a lot of filling in the gaps, and not having full access just makes those gaps bigger.

That brings us down to good fanfic or bad fanfic, and as I said, I think it's far too early to make that judgement. How they handle Númenor is going to be very telling. Celebrimbor's motives are going to be very telling. But this is the kind of thing we only ever get full clarity on when looking back at a finished work. I'm at least willing to give it a chance.

If nothing else, it should get a few more people reading the Silmarillion, and that has to count for something.

[Bêthberry]

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.

[Pitchwife]

Bêthberry, hat is very much the impression I got as well, and many of the objections against warrior-Galadriel remind me a lot of the irate protests when the BBC cast Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor a few years ago. It's the same discussion still going on.

However, I feel bound to play devil's advocate for a bit and point out that if the question is women's agency, then putting a weapon in a character's hand is just one way of showing agency, and not even a particularly imaginative one. For example, Lúthien is as active and self-determined a character as they come and certainly did more to ensure the success of the quest for the silmaril than Beren accomplished himself, but she managed all that without using a physical weapon. It seems to me many critics of warrior-Galadriel (certainly those I've seen posting on the Downs) would have been fine with a more Lúthien-like Galadriel using magic instead of a sword - which would also have been truer to what we read about her in LotR and the Silmarillion.


So what's the problem? It seems it's fine for a woman to be badass as long as she does it within the parameters of traditional gender roles where it's men who are tough, physical, aggressive, whereas women are sensitive, spiritual, caring (and let's not forget sexy! The Lay of Leithian has some downright creepy verses in the passage where Lúthien stands before Morgoth). The problem with 'ackshun gurls' is that they're perceived to be usurping a role and behaviour previously reserved for men (similar to how Jodie Whittaker was perceived to usurp the hitherto male role of the Doctor) - so if you're a guy and have hitherto defined yourself all your life by conforming (or at least trying to conform) to the male gender role described above, but now all of a sudden women do all that too, what have you got left? That is the part that hurts, the part where you lash out.



To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

[Formendacil]

I think Galadriel is especially a cipher for Tolkien fans coming to the RoP. Quite beyond the hot-button issue of "Gender Roles at the Intersection of Politics and Wokeism," Tolkien simultaneously wrote too much and not enough about her.

Too much: the LotR, its drafts and ephemera (including the Appendices and the 2nd Edition), her insertion into the Silm and its associated texts, to say nothing of the various texts that were intended to specifically fill in her history.

Too little: well... we still really only have an outline--and a contradictory one--of her movements and actions through the better part of three ages. Insofar as Celeborn should be considered her narrative appendage, it's unclear when they meet, where, and how/if he's her kin.

It is kind of funny that Galadriel in particular should give rise to complaints about "a woman holding a sword," since she's explicitly named "Nerwen" in what was is not a peripheral text, and fairly well delineated as being about to compete in physical masculine activities with the male Elves. Whether this continues past her encounter with Melian (which does seem to have been a revelation of sorts to Galadriel about another, even better, kind of power she could exercise) is an open question, and I think it's probably right to look in askance at her being made a general in the 2nd Age when her role seems to already be queenly (and in the mode of Melian). But to complain that RoP is smushing various parts of timelines into a smudged whole is different from saying "Tolkien believed women should never fight with swords!"

Although, I think there is an argument to be made that Tolkien made Galadriel more and more powerful, even Virgin Marian, as he aged and that, consequently, the best canonical complaint is that RoP makes Galadriel way too underpowered.

There certainly were complaints about Arwen wielding a sword in the LotR, and I think that--as far as being an interpretation of Tolkien's text goes, that's actually MORE valid, since Arwen's role is deliberately more passive and her likeness is specifically to Lúthien (though Tolkien's a bit coy there--Lúthien is very much not a passive heroine: the likeness is visual and dynastic more than narrative).

So, as I said, Galadriel makes a particularly good cipher because there's both so much known about her and so much unknown about her: to form a strong complaint (or, for that matter, a strong preference) for her usage in RoP--and through three episodes, at that!--really shows to what extent the particular reader has formed their own opinions about the conflicting information Tolkien left.

The absence of Celeborn and Círdan, now, is a tragedy! Sindarin erasure, I tell you.

[Galadriel55]

Having caught up to the show, I am looping back here, as promised. First, a general reflection, and then some specific responses.

I don't think there was ever a time when I didn't esteem fellow Downers' opinions highly, but I think this watch goes to show it. I was ever so much more excited about things I liked that I knew other people here liked too, and felt a somewhat disproportionate disappointment about things which have been praised highly here but did not quite meet my vision - disproportionate because they are still goon elements, IMO, just not bullseye. And that is discernably not anything to do with the show itself, but part of my own expectations for it. I feel like on a subconscious level the fact that certain elements were praised by Downers somehow led me to believe that they will be reflective of my vision of what it should look like - a grievous error, perhaps, since I was trying hard to psych myself up to not fall into that trap. It does point out an interesting aspect though that my mind associates "what Downers think" to be representative for "what I would think". I'm certainly happy to have found a community where though we might disagree on this or that we still end up respecting each other's opinions to such a degree. You sociology experts can keep working away at the deeper meanings of this observation, my own self-psychoanalysis will stop here.

Now, in answer to the last couple posts. I wasn't going to bring up Galadriel, because there has been much chaffing about her that's left a sore spot on everybody, I think - and no less on myself, as I find myself arguing with both of the extreme camps. But that box is open now, so might as well.

Originally Posted by Pitch

To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

This. The armour is the least ridiculous thing about that character, and I am saying this having now watched the episodes and not just speaking from the promo material. I don't have much against the armour itself, but it is done in a way that cheapens Galadriel as a character. She literally says herself in the show that all she is is a sword. All she is, is a sword. And a loud mouth, and zero patience and negative scores on wisdom. Even Brienne was more than just a sword. Galadriel's raison d'etre seems to be to be as outrageous as possible - but because we the audience know that she's supposed to be right in the end, we're supposed to... cheer for her?

...Sorry, I'm starting to rant again.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Why is sword Gal so objectionable but not origami Gal?

It's interesting you ask. Because I did have a minor objection to the origami - not because it's origami, but because Galadriel didn't seem to ever be much of a builder, or much of a shipwright, and I thought that if you had to pick an activity that would be representative of her, this was an odd choice. However, I then immediately rebutted my own objection by arguing that she may have done any number of things in her youth, just did not develop enough of an inclination to pursue them further, and this may be her exploring her Telerin heritage. And when she punched the kid who sunk her origami boat, my reaction was "this is perfect Nerwen".

So what issue do I have with the concept of shieldmaiden-Galadriel? For one thing, in my mind she was so much more than that. For another, that the chronology of her character development is all wrong. She is Nerwen in Valinor. I can well see a young Galadriel getting all hot-headed and rushing off on a vengeful quest or even leading an army in the Valinor days, or at Alqualonde, or Helcaraxe, or perhaps shortly after. In Beleriand I can see her donning armour to stand guard with other soldiers and/or generals during the wars of her kingdom(s). Perhaps she might even have marched up to Morgoth's gate with Fingolfin's host, or done a tour of the Leaguer. She might certainly still do whatever masculine sports Nerwen might have enjoyed - but as sports, not as raison d'etre. And had there been reason for them to be more than sports, I think she would have used her skills accordingly. But I think she would have respected Doriathrin politics of minimal interference in the Noldor messes, standing by her husband's house in that, and by the time Thingol and Melian died she and Celeborn were no longer there, or else the Dwarves and Cel&Cur might have found more resistance. Then, as time goes by, she devotes less care to swinging the sword, and more care to building a kingdom - after all, that was her ambition in coming to Middle-earth in the first place, and it is a natural progression from soldier to general, from hot-tempered youth to wisdom. Her energy is directed less into brute force and more into other forms of power. Her power grows not in martial prowess but in her "magic" and in her position in the world. Does she still have the martial prowess? Sure. Is that what she values most about herself? No. Does she wear armour as she marches on Dol Guldur? Probably. In the end, is it her sword-bouncing skills that take it down? No. The progression is from Nerwen to Galadriel, not the other way around.

What we see in the show is a Galadriel who seemed a little bit of an outcast as a kid, and had a bit of a temper - which was actually still tempered by none other than Finrod. She then spends the glimpses of the First Age in presumably a more docile role - she comes to the battlefield to bury the fallen, not to fight. And then she decides it's time for her to get all fiery and start swinging the sword. She goes from a generic bereaved female to Nerwen, in a backwards progression - the bereavement is one of the things that's supposed to temper her manners, not fuel them.

So I dislike that, and I would argue that the Nerwen argument loses its weight here - not because of the physical presence of sword and armour but because of the timing and development of what she does with them. It's not her holding the sword so much as that this seems to be her character's only positive attribute so far. An attribute that is made ridiculous by cheap fight scenes like that troll. She's not the only one to suffer from ridiculous fight choreography, but the troll scene so far stands out from the rest by virtue of highlighting the alleged skills of one person against a bunch of failures and breaks all semblance of realism and suspense. But that's another rant altogether, more to do with fight sequences in general - so far they do not make their heroes stand out more positively, but on the contrary.

All this to say, I suppose what it tells about me is that I do have some subconscious expectation for parallels with canon in terms of at least the broad strokes of character development for characters whose progression and story we actually know. It can be achieved by alt-fic means, but you still have to get there and hit certain milestones. It hurts me a lot more to see a beloved character's milestones mangled up. It makes me angry when I think about all the times the promos claimed to have made this storyline an improvement on what was, a more modern view, etc. The idea of a woman wielding a sword is not modern, nor is it in itself anti-Tolkien; but this woman does so little for which to be respected that I don't know what favour they think they are doing her or women in general with that depiction. I know the attitude that you are referring to in your post, and I agree that the preconceptions at play may reach quite broadly. For myself though, I feel that I would be much less angry in this case about "a generic character" taking this role, and much more angry about "this particular known character" taking this role.

All of these thoughts have made me wonder about alt-fics in general, and what we find acceptible or otherwise, and why. But I think I will put those ponderings in a separate thread, probably over in N&N as it is not necessarily specific to the movies.


Edit: X-ed with Form. It's a rare day when this happens outside of a WW game!

Originally Posted by Form

the best canonical complaint is that RoP makes Galadriel way too underpowered.

Yes!!! But not underpowered in the "how many backflips you can do while swinging your sword", but rather all the other power she's supposed to be emanating even at this point already. Becoming more queenly, like you said - being the charismatic leader, playing the political game, exerting her spiritual power Melian-style... That doesn't mean she can't swing a sword - but right now ALL she can do is swing a sword. Where is her charisma? Where is her leadership? At the very least her bit of common sense and tact???

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Yes!!! But not underpowered in the "how many backflips you can do while swinging your sword", but rather all the other power she's supposed to be emanating even at this point already. Becoming more queenly, like you said - being the charismatic leader, playing the political game, exerting her spiritual power Melian-style... That doesn't mean she can't swing a sword - but right now ALL she can do is swing a sword. Where is her charisma? Where is her leadership? At the very least her bit of common sense and tact???

I do believe that is the path her story will eventually lead to. In any dramatic adaptation, your main characters need development. As much as people griped about Aragorn shouldn't be waffly, and should have accepted his right to the throne of Gondor as soon as he meets the hobbits in Bree. The truth is (at least in my opinion) your main characters have to grow and change. It's a difficult task. In an adaptation that relies primarily on visual the story has to be told differently. We need to see how Aragorn changes, not hear about it.

One of the complaints about Galadriel I saw after the first episode is how "she's just oh so awesome and always right, because she's Galadriel." I really didn't get that one, because I had the complete opposite reactions. She is very flawed at the moment. Her independence and willfulness makes her a poor commander. Which is I think how we are supposed to perceive her at the moment. A skilled warrior (Isildur even called her the "scourge of the Orcs"), but someone who is constantly ending up alone because of her independence, making her a poor leader. My criticism would be, I think they're being really heavy-handed with it. It's ok for your main characters to have flaws. For example, someone like Thorin (I thought Richard Armitage's performance was one of the slightly better things about The Hobbit). He played the flawed hero well, but it was still someone you had sympathy for and could react to sadly when he died. You can't hate your main hero. She can have flaws and weaknesses, but we also need to feel sympathy and hope that she grows into her leadership role.

It's sort of the same reason I had a bigger problem with Alfrid than with Tauriel. They obviously tried to make Alfrid the comic relief, but you can't make someone the audience is seriously annoyed by be the comic relief.

[Boromir88]

As a separate thought, that came to me reading Bethberry'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.".

Please correct me if this is wrong, because I did not study literary criticism, and don't know the lingo. One point you seem to be making is Tolkien was a product of his time. I don't mean that as a negative, but he was still a 20th century author. Yes, he was inspired by historical literary works, classics and mythologies. But to me, he was also clearly a 20th century writer, and also incorporated modern ideas of his time.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambigious.~Foreward to Lord of the Rings

Tolkien definitely deals with modern topics such as industrialism, the destruction of nature, colonialism, the horrors of war (Frodo's post traumatic stress). Again this isn't a criticism, but it's the product of being a 20th century author. You can't remain wholly unaffected by the period you're writing in. It's not surprising to me that Rings of Power is distinctly a product of 21st century writers. I agree that it is more than baggage.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Please correct me if this is wrong, because I did not study literary criticism, and don't know the lingo. One point you seem to be making is Tolkien was a product of his time. I don't mean that as a negative, but he was still a 20th century author. Yes, he was inspired by historical literary works, classics and mythologies. But to me, he was also clearly a 20th century writer, and also incorporated modern ideas of his time.

Tolkien definitely deals with modern topics such as industrialism, the destruction of nature, colonialism, the horrors of war (Frodo's post traumatic stress). Again this isn't a criticism, but it's the product of being a 20th century author. You can't remain wholly unaffected by the period you're writing in. It's not surprising to me that Rings of Power is distinctly a product of 21st century writers. I agree that it is more than baggage.

Oh, no, sorry Boro for being unclear but I was not in any way referring to Tolkien. I was referring to critics, fans, and readers of him and of the various media that derive from his work.

Talking about writers is far more complex than talking about critics. At heart I was taking issue with loremasters who believe they can unreservedly and transparently speak directly about what Tolkien thought and intended, to the detriment of any other possible interpretations by other fans, specifically about RoP.

You are of course correct that Tolkien was a 20th Century writer. There's lots of material about that I can add to your list but that's a topic for another thread. And sorry about the linguistic theory lingo. I was directing my thoughts towards loremasters here who I anticipated would be familiar with it and not general readers. I'll aim to be less opaque in future posts.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Bêthberry,
I feel bound to play devil's advocate for a bit and point out that if the question is women's agency, then putting a weapon in a character's hand is just one way of showing agency, and not even a particularly imaginative one. For example, Lúthien is as active and self-determined a character as they come and certainly did more to ensure the success of the quest for the silmaril than Beren accomplished himself, but she managed all that without using a physical weapon. It seems to me many critics of warrior-Galadriel (certainly those I've seen posting on the Downs) would have been fine with a more Lúthien-like Galadriel using magic instead of a sword - which would also have been truer to what we read about her in LotR and the Silmarillion.

Thanks for chiming in, Pitch. And I agree that a sword is just one way of showing agency. But ...

First, in the interests of full disclosure, let me say I am not particularly a fan of the elves. I didn't like their condescending assumption of their superiority or privilege in LotR, as if there were a hierarchy of peoples and they were/are at the top. And while I like the hobbits, I'm not especially keen on their parochialism or fearfulness of what's outside The Shire (except for our intrepid four). It was the dwarves in LotR who gained my sympathy, perhaps because I tend to look towards those who are marginalised in some way. So I'm not one to have really great admiration for Galadriel. And reading in HoMe or the Silm does not do much to improve my view of elves. They had their chance and essentially blew it and were/are as culpable of error and mistakes as any other of the peoples of the Legendarium.

That said (and take away my Lembas if you want and send me to the corner), I think there is a lot of room to show how a younger Galadriel behaved or misbehaved before she found some equanimity or serene wisdom. I think Tolkien too was conflicted about how to write Galadriel into the Silm after LotR. So I don't object to seeing swordsmanship being used to demonstrate her physical prowess and expect to see growth in her character. I also recall Tolkien's effort to explain away magic and try to explain the special effects of the elves as some kind of art which we readers cannot appreciate or yet see. I also see her in this Age as something equivalent to an angsty adolescent who isn't sure how to express herself in anything other than a rebellious attitude or stubborn self-will. So I am expecting to see her "grow out of" relying on kung fu fighting. Maybe I have greater expectations than I should of this series or maybe I am just too willing not have too strong expectations of what I want to see in her. And I remember Jael and Sisera in the Bible or Judith and Holofernes as well. We do see the woman healer beheading an orc.

To be clear, I don't think presenting Galadriel as a swordswoman was a stellar decision on the makers' part - it's a rather lazy visual shorthand for agency, and it seems like they felt they needed to have their own Brienne to keep up with Game of Thrones; but it doesn't bother me, and I think there are worse problems with RoP's writing of Galadriel - like, what in the name of diplomacy did she think she was going to accomplish by being all haughty and lick my boots (oh wait I'm barefoot) with Míriel? Shouldn't Finrod's sister have been a little more sympathetic towards mortals?

Another disclosure: I haven't watched Game of Thrones nor read Martin's books either. I just couldn't get past the third chapter of the first book, so I'm missing that context. And I agree her behaviour with Miriel seems wrong, seems destined to lead to trouble. But then, that could just be the arrogant elf aspect of her character and something she will learn is inappropriate. On the other hand, it could just be bad characterisation, bad writing.

I guess I am just willing to sit back and see what plays out rather than have any high expectations of the character. But I do object to people mixing up their ideology with Tolkien's art and calling that Tolkien's canonical statement, which you have neatly sidestepped.

[Michael Murry]

I finally found a way to watch and listen to this Amazon television thing without having to pay Jeff Bezos any of my few and hard-earned pennies. I tuned in to the DELETED BY ADMIN channel and found several uploaded episodes. The ones in English are marked "restricted," as expected. However, I discovered some dubbed in other languages, like Hindi. I took a few courses in Sanskrit in graduate school but I never followed up on that, and I don't speak Hindi, but "Galadriel" appears to sound the same in many languages. So I got the gist of the opening scene in Episode One without the need for any written subtitles which would have required of me an ability to read. Now a complete illiterate (like millions of television gawkers worldwide) I just look at moving visual images and listen to musical accompaniment and wait for something that makes sense to happen in my brain.

With the above in mind, I picked up on the following observation from our thread commentary:

Bêthberry: "I think there is a lot of room to show how a younger Galadriel behaved or misbehaved before she found some equanimity or serene wisdom."

The opening scene of Episode 1 showed a young blond girl having problems with other kids who threw rocks at, and eventually sank, her origami boat floating downstream, whereupon she attacked the responsible culprit and proceeded to punch him out until some apparently male figure with very short hair appeared on scene. "He" called her name -- the only word I could understand -- and interrupted the beating.

I hit the "pause" button and stopped viewing at this time because something recognizable happened in my brain. I found that the opening of this video:

[DELETED BY ADMIN]

Reminded me of the opening scene of another movie I have seen many times over the years:

[DELETED BY ADMIN]

I then skipped ahead to the end of this first episode because others had mentioned a streaking meteor flashing overhead, with a curly haired, furry footed (apparently) female character checking out the crash site and seeing a semi-naked figure curled up in the fetal position at the bottom of a flaming hole. Someone else said that this reminded them of "Starman," and I agree. However I also thought of "Superman," and "The Blob," among other movies that have exploited this trope.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the "spoilers." These will help me to select scenes and put names to the figures I see "doing stuff" while the background music plays and they utter inchoate noises at each other. Whether that helps me make sense of these broadcasts remains presently unclear . . .

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

First, in the interests of full disclosure, let me say I am not particularly a fan of the elves. I didn't like their condescending assumption of their superiority or privilege in LotR, as if there were a hierarchy of peoples and they were/are at the top. And while I like the hobbits, I'm not especially keen on their parochialism or fearfulness of what's outside The Shire (except for our intrepid four). It was the dwarves in LotR who gained my sympathy, perhaps because I tend to look towards those who are marginalised in some way. So I'm not one to have really great admiration for Galadriel. And reading in HoMe or the Silm does not do much to improve my view of elves. They had their chance and essentially blew it and were/are as culpable of error and mistakes as any other of the peoples of the Legendarium.

Quite right on all accounts (and they passed that racial superiority complex down to the Númenóreans as well). But if there's one elf in LotR who showed sympathy and understanding to other peoples (especially Dwarves!) from the first moment we met her it's Galadriel:

Originally Posted by LotR Book Two, The Mirror of Galadriel

'Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dûm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone.' She looked upon Gimli, who sat glowering and sad, and smiled. And the Dwarf, hearing the names given in his own ancient tongue, looked up and met her eyes; and it seemed to him that he looked suddenly into the heart of an enemy and saw there love and understanding.

It would be nice if RoP showed us how she arrived at this.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That said (and take away my Lembas if you want and send me to the corner), I think there is a lot of room to show how a younger Galadriel behaved or misbehaved before she found some equanimity or serene wisdom. I think Tolkien too was conflicted about how to write Galadriel into the Silm after LotR. So I don't object to seeing swordsmanship being used to demonstrate her physical prowess and expect to see growth in her character. I also recall Tolkien's effort to explain away magic and try to explain the special effects of the elves as some kind of art which we readers cannot appreciate or yet see. I also see her in this Age as something equivalent to an angsty adolescent who isn't sure how to express herself in anything other than a rebellious attitude or stubborn self-will. So I am expecting to see her "grow out of" relying on kung fu fighting. Maybe I have greater expectations than I should of this series or maybe I am just too willing not have too strong expectations of what I want to see in her. And I remember Jael and Sisera in the Bible or Judith and Holofernes as well. We do see the woman healer beheading an orc.

Far be it from me to begrudge you your lembas! No doubt Galadriel had her rebellious adolescent phase like everybody else - back in the First Age, which RoP can't show, so under the dictate that characters need to have arcs, start somewhere and end up somewhere else I get why they're doing this. I'm not quite sure why a person of such volatile temper would be made Commander of the Northern Armies, but I suppose nobility will do that for you.
That Galadriel had the physical prowess to wield a sword and be good at it anytime is, I think, undisputable. I said I don't think it was a stellar decision, not that it was an abysmal one, and I'm for now I'm content to watch what they do with her. It certainly doesn't mean I have any principal objections against women with swords. (Since you brought up Bronwyn [whom I keep wanting to call Bronwen, which would not only be good Welsh but also remotely plausible Sindarin] beheading the Orc, it's interesting that none of warrior-Galadriel's detractors have objected to that, isn't it? Probably because she was acting as Momma Bear protecting her young = conforming to maternal gender role.)

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I guess I am just willing to sit back and see what plays out rather than have any high expectations of the character. But I do object to people mixing up their ideology with Tolkien's art and calling that Tolkien's canonical statement, which you have neatly sidestepped.

Have I? I thought I agreed with you and tried to make a guess about the psychology behind the ideology.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

So what issue do I have with the concept of shieldmaiden-Galadriel? For one thing, in my mind she was so much more than that. For another, that the chronology of her character development is all wrong. She is Nerwen in Valinor. I can well see a young Galadriel getting all hot-headed and rushing off on a vengeful quest or even leading an army in the Valinor days, or at Alqualonde, or Helcaraxe, or perhaps shortly after. In Beleriand I can see her donning armour to stand guard with other soldiers and/or generals during the wars of her kingdom(s). Perhaps she might even have marched up to Morgoth's gate with Fingolfin's host, or done a tour of the Leaguer. She might certainly still do whatever masculine sports Nerwen might have enjoyed - but as sports, not as raison d'etre. And had there been reason for them to be more than sports, I think she would have used her skills accordingly. But I think she would have respected Doriathrin politics of minimal interference in the Noldor messes, standing by her husband's house in that, and by the time Thingol and Melian died she and Celeborn were no longer there, or else the Dwarves and Cel&Cur might have found more resistance. Then, as time goes by, she devotes less care to swinging the sword, and more care to building a kingdom - after all, that was her ambition in coming to Middle-earth in the first place, and it is a natural progression from soldier to general, from hot-tempered youth to wisdom. Her energy is directed less into brute force and more into other forms of power. Her power grows not in martial prowess but in her "magic" and in her position in the world. Does she still have the martial prowess? Sure. Is that what she values most about herself? No. Does she wear armour as she marches on Dol Guldur? Probably. In the end, is it her sword-bouncing skills that take it down? No. The progression is from Nerwen to Galadriel, not the other way around.

I really hope we'll see this yet, just pushed into the future by an Age or so.

[Michael Murry]

[DELETED BY ADMIN]

Understood.

But since I refuse to spend precious pennies watching this Amazon-ROP drek, I really have no basis upon which to form an opinion other than second-hand reports from others who say that they have. This conversation, then, obviously must exclude me. Fair enough.

And if Jeff Bezos and Amazon don't qualify as pirates, then the word has really lost all applicability to real life.

Sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone and Best Wishes to all who can afford to bother themselves with this sort of "entertainment."