How We Read Rings of Power

[Formendacil]

More so than in the more spoilery Episode thread, this seems the best place to put my overall impressions after watching the first episode, not least because my "review" as such probably does work out to an untangling of hermeneutic as much as anything else.

I didn't hate it. That might have been something noteworthy, circa 2002, when I was willing to be the fiercest defender of canon and was willing to write off The Fellowship over Arwen's curved sword, but I was able to watch the middle Hobbit movie and enjoy myself, so the ship has sailed on my need to hate anything that I can demolish with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the source material.

That said, I'm not sure my enjoyment was at all the sort of enjoyment Rings of Power was made to provoke: the whole thing is a puzzle and I want nothing more than to pull on the loose threads and unravel it: why differ from the canon here? Why portray that there? Why, why, why? It is entertaining me, to filter the Tolkien from the not-Tolkien, the gap-filling from the rewriting, and the extremely amateur part of me that has tried to be a writer is enjoying calling things nonsense in a way analogous to the fun of finding a typo in a professionally-published book.

It is somewhat illuminating too: the changes to the plot really don't bother me at all. Changes to nomenclature, mood, word-use, setting--these DO bother me. And, looking back, that's kind of how it was in the beginning: I hated Arwen's curved sword ever so much more than her turning up on Asfaloth, stealing Glorfindel's existence.

[Missed opportunity there! Just think if PJ had given us Glorfindel: he'd be so useful in this story! We're overworking Galadriel just to give us a familiar character.]

The real big takeaway for me, though, is that--besides gently enjoying myself and being ready to go on tomorrow to doing it again--is just how forgettable I think it's going to be. Nothing here is going to change the landscape of Tolkien studies or Tolkien fandom or Tolkien culture the way the Jackson movies did. I don't think it's even going to affect 16 year old fangeeks with a Tumblr the way Jackson's Hobbit movies did. We'll see if I feel that way after another episode or after the whole series, but this far in its... eh, it's not really that worth getting worked over. If you think you're a serious Tolkien scholar, this shouldn't make you mad. That'd be like Shakespeare having to worry about Colley Cibber's pantomime.

[Boromir88]

Great idea for a thread, Bethberry.

I had read Book I of Fellowship of the Ring, before seeing it in theaters (my dad told me I should start the book to have an idea about the movie). I went to theaters, loved the movie. Then proceeded to finish reading Lord of the Rings before The Two Towers came out next year. To this day I credit the movies (and my dad) for my Tolkien passion taking off. I think Fellowship of the Ring is the best movie Jackson did. Since it was a great film, it made me want to finish reading the books. After finishing them prior to The Two Towers coming out in theaters, I found I liked the books better than the movies. The rest is history.

With the Rings of Power series I stopped paying attention to the news and rumors of it around the time the teaser posters came out. I had very low expectations this is (or will be) "the story Tolkien never wrote." My feelings have always been if I wanted a Tolkien story I would just read the books. So, I'm not bothered by the liberties, and lack of lore in the series. I've been watching the series with a group of 5 others, they're all baby LOTR nerds. Some of them have read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, and they all know I've read the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales..etc etc. So, it's kind of neat watching it with people who are so far enjoying it and building up their interest to read the books.

I've had an Amazon Prime account for years (the free shipping for having a prime account pays for itself). I'm going to keep my account regardless of whether I continue watching the series or not (again, the free shipping more than makes up the account fees). So, in my head, the series is like a free bonus. I'm not paying anything extra for it. Maybe that's why I've been more open to the series?

[Lalwendë]

It's a very, very long time since I expected book adaptations to be pitch perfect copies of the text. Even if they are, they're often a little bit staid - looking here at Watchmen and Dune, which don't really excite me to watch again. Sometimes, an adaptation takes the source material, screws it up into a ball, throws it in the bin and gold is found - Children Of Men.

So I never had that expectation. And the makers of this said *from the start* they only had access to limited source material. I was therefore sceptical right from the start. I knew it was going to be like very expensive fan fiction.

That's what I went in to expect. My main objection was paying Jeff Bezos, who could spend £28m a day and never run dry, any money. But davem paid for it, so ..😂

I will admittedly hoover up any fantasy TV - but it gets switched off if it leaves me cold (Barbarians, Outlander after it stopped being Scottish, that thing about Crusaders). This didn't. I even enjoyed the bits that annoyed me, feeling self righteous grumps at Finrod being wronged (his real death is so much more...), and laughing at Galadriel's Michael Phelps stint.

During this scene Alfie started going "durrr-der, durrr-der" like the Jaws theme. Me: "If you don't be quiet you can go to your bedroom!" while secretly laughing.

Having a diverse cast? Meh, it's no problem. Lenny Henry is *superb*, he's notoriously Brummie in a TV series based on a Brummie's appendices, absolutely spot on. You can't go wrong with him. All shows swap or change things up - GoT did this in the extreme and it was absolutely fine to change Daenerys from a bald 13 year old into a woman who inspired hair goals, and to not have Peter Dinklage without a nose, or have an old Eddard which meant we got Sean Bean. It's fine in Sandman too, Death was cool, goths don't all have white Manic Panic on their faces.

A slashy Galadriel? Let's see. It looked good, a bit weird and Wagnerian, but I tend to think she got her power from her ring anyway going by what the Osanwe Kenta says. She's a bit po faced just now, but it may change. She plays 'sad' very well.

Let's see how it pans out.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Nothing here is going to change the landscape of Tolkien studies or Tolkien fandom or Tolkien culture the way the Jackson movies did.

Or did it?


Haven't posted here in forever (at least an age or two). Suddenly I get the urge, feel the 'call' as it were, and when I get here, seems like everyone is popping back in as well.


As we sure that The Barrow-Wight isn't Bezos? And RoP isn't just an elaborate scheme to get us all back?


Just saying...

[mark12_30]

I liked it.
Okay, I Loved it.
We got over squashed timelines before. And wympy Treebeard, and waffling Strider. So I can forgive Squashed timeline… and mangled Faramir-I-mean-Finrod. And short-haired elves. It’s a fanfic, streaming once a week.

Looking back over PJ’s movies, I have favorite sections and I have scenes I skip. (Same with the soundtrack.) This will be no different. I just get to take several years to decide what parts are keepers and what parts are skippers.

Did you know they are offering the soundtrack for each episode?

[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.

[Pitchwife]

I've been in two minds for some time about whether or not to watch this, not because woe it's going to suck and sully Tolkien's memory forevah but because I've become a bit detached from genre fantasy in general over the years - but that hasn't kept me from watching and enjoying GoT and The Witcher, and we have Prime anyway, so why not. So I've now watched the first two episodes and found them far from my new favourite thing, but entertaining and *gasp* in some parts even enjoyable.

I think part of my approach to this is distinguishing between
a) Tolkien's writings, born from his very personal creative vision and love of language, which I'm convinced have now deservedly attained their place in the canon of 20th century literature, and
b) the multimedia franchise that has grown around them, which is ruled by capitalist market forces. Some may regret that b) ever came into existence, but that ship sailed long ago (with the release of MERP at the very latest).
No matter which antics b) gets up to, I'm confident that a) will endure and continue to enchant readers long after Peter Jackson, Jeff Bezos and all participants in this discussion are dead and dust, and if some of these readers sought out the books after watching some movie or series and discover that they have much more to give than they were led to expect, so much the better.

So I never expected RoP to be anything but Mr Bezos's personal Tolkien fanfic and was therefore willing to be pleasantly surprised. (I think Bêthberry's distinction between fan fic and alt fic is useful, but I'm afraid I can't really be bothered to go into this.)

And pleasantly surprised I was! I mean, I could get my knickers in a twist nitpicking any number of details they got wrong (starting with Finrod calling his sister Galadriel), and 10 or 20 years ago I probably would have, but I've become much less obsessive-compulsive about Tolkien's worldbuilding than I was, and honestly, at 60 time is too preciousss for that. I'm not too happy with some of the names (Elanor Brandyfoot? Bronwyn? Theo?) and some casting choices (Gil-galad and Celebrimbor looking older than Galadriel?), but that's no big matter. (Actually I think Theo is defendable - it's probably short for Théodwurst or some such, like Tolkien used other RL names and retconned an alternative etymology for them, whereas Bronwyn is not only out of place but also bad Welsh.) Not too happy with Scottish Dwarves stuffing themselves with salted pork and malt beer, but very happy with Dísa, although some more facial hair wouldn't have hurt.

I can forgive the makers for making things up to fill in the gaps between the scraps of material they have the rights to, and also for some canon-violating temporal condensation. Would I rather they'd made a 100 season series faithfully covering both the First and Second Ages? Well of course, but since that's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes...

I can live with RoP's Galadriel, although she reminds me more of Avatar Korra than of Tolkien's White Lady of Lórien, but if we see her maturing from her present self into the Sorceress of Dwimordene in the course of the series I'll be happy. (Actually, come to think of it, Morfydd Clark would make a stellar Éowyn IMO.) I'm fine with her being a swordswoman - I mean, yes, there are other ways of portraying a strong female protagonist than making her an armed fighter and a rebel against authority, but they've got that covered with Nori and Bronwyn, and if someone must needs be the action girl young Nerwen Artanis is not a bad choice. (Of course she should be beyond that stage at this point in her life, but since we can't have Melian, oh well.) I do hope that we'll still see Celeborn though - maybe even Celebrian? She is mentioned in LotR after all.

Does the whole plot around Galadriel, Gil-galad and Elrond make a lot of sense? Not really. Is the dialogue sometimes cringy and overly expository à la "As you know, Elrond..."? Quite.

The Harfeet, like many others have said, are the big heartwarmer and major forte of the series so far, and yeah, the Stranger is probably Olórin, who obviously has no business being there, but if they limit his role to protecting the proto-Hobbits without meddling in the larger affair of the Rings directly it'll be fine. If the makers are messing with us and he turns out to be Sauron I'll be seriously grumpy. Or he could be Catweazle marooned not just in the wrong time but wrong continuum too. We'll see.

The plot around Arondir and Bronwyn could go interesting places, giving us a close glimpse of Sauron's rise to power in the South-east. Yes I know, there have only ever been three unions between Elves and Men... that we know of. (What about Mithrellas?) Good choice making it an Elven man and mortal woman for a change, we haven't seen that since Andreth and Aegnor.

One thing they've got resoundingly right so far is the visuals. The glory of light and colour in the scenes set in Valinor, and to a slightly lesser degree in Lindon and Eregion, captures the essence of Elvishness better for me than anything in Peter Jackson's movies. You get an impression of the Light the Elves wish to restore and conserve, the Light that is spiritual, not just physical. The scene where the ship sails to Valinor conveys that this is as much a spiritual journey as a physical one for the Elves, that the Blessed Realm is more than just another shore, and even if Valinor was at this point still part of the physical plane(t) I'd rather have that notion in the wrong place than not at all.


That's probably quite enough for now. Let's see what happens on Friday.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I even enjoyed the bits that annoyed me, feeling self righteous grumps at Finrod being wronged (his real death is so much more...), and laughing at Galadriel's Michael Phelps stint.

During this scene Alfie started going "durrr-der, durrr-der" like the Jaws theme.

Good to know that there are more people who did this. Great minds think alike, as they say. You can tell him that "Uncle" Legate sends regards.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

A slashy Galadriel? Let's see. It looked good, a bit weird and Wagnerian, but I tend to think she got her power from her ring anyway going by what the Osanwe Kenta says. She's a bit po faced just now, but it may change. She plays 'sad' very well.

I agree especially with the last sentence. I was not sure what to expect, but overall the acting in the series is pretty good. (A pity the script hasn't been so far as good as the acting.)

Originally Posted by mark12_30

We got over squashed timelines before. And wympy Treebeard, and waffling Strider. So I can forgive Squashed timeline… and mangled Faramir-I-mean-Finrod. And short-haired elves. It’s a fanfic, streaming once a week.

Basically this. I was able to accept bearded Strider, so...

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I think part of my approach to this is distinguishing between
a) Tolkien's writings, born from his very personal creative vision and love of language, which I'm convinced have now deservedly attained their place in the canon of 20th century literature, and
b) the multimedia franchise that has grown around them, which is ruled by capitalist market forces. Some may regret that b) ever came into existence, but that ship sailed long ago (with the release of MERP at the very latest).
No matter which antics b) gets up to, I'm confident that a) will endure and continue to enchant readers long after Peter Jackson, Jeff Bezos and all participants in this discussion are dead and dust, and if some of these readers sought out the books after watching some movie or series and discover that they have much more to give than they were led to expect, so much the better.

Hear, hear!

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

(Gil-galad and Celebrimbor looking older than Galadriel?), but that's no big matter.

Others have mentioned it but I feel like underlining it because it is one of the things that bothers me the most - there should be some consistency, a relative one at least, if not absolute. If it was a casting choice to redefine Celebrimbor as old mad scientist-type, then perhaps I am willing to forgive that, but Gil-Galad and Galadriel could have easily swapped places. Obviously the culprit is the still-present thinking "we need to make the lady young and attractive, while nobody cares if the men are older". Once again - I am against the "cult of youthfulness" that still seems to exist to this day, but there would have been a justified opportunity to do that here and have a cool young Gil-Galad and co.

Originally Posted by Pitch

Actually I think Theo is defendable - it's probably short for Théodwurst or some such

You, sir, are amazing as always.

Originally Posted by Pitch

The Harfeet, like many others have said, are the big heartwarmer and major forte of the series so far, and yeah, the Stranger is probably Olórin, who obviously has no business being there, but if they limit his role to protecting the proto-Hobbits without meddling in the larger affair of the Rings directly it'll be fine. If the makers are messing with us and he turns out to be Sauron I'll be seriously grumpy.

I find it increasingly less likely. If he is not Mothrandir Himself, he may be Radagast. Or Pallando. I personally would cheer for the plot twist that he is the Balrog. You know, a shadow of a man-like figure surrounded in flames... quite easy to transform into that from here. Obviously, his wings burned away during the flight. Lo! How to satisfy both parties of pro-wingers and anti-wingers.

Originally Posted by Pitch

The plot around Arondir and Bronwyn could go interesting places, giving us a close glimpse of Sauron's rise to power in the South-east. Yes I know, there have only ever been three unions between Elves and Men... that we know of. (What about Mithrellas?) Good choice making it an Elven man and mortal woman for a change, we haven't seen that since Andreth and Aegnor.

I think showing Sauron's rise among the folk of Middle-Earth (which is not really described in detail in any of Tolkien's stories) is just the opportunity and the niche this show could fill. I hope they will, and that they will do it well.

As for any half-elven dalliances... I am not giving them high chances, but hey, why not. And obviously all the Dol Amroth people need to come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by Pitch

One thing they've got resoundingly right so far is the visuals. The glory of light and colour in the scenes set in Valinor, and to a slightly lesser degree in Lindon and Eregion, captures the essence of Elvishness better for me than anything in Peter Jackson's movies. You get an impression of the Light the Elves wish to restore and conserve, the Light that is spiritual, not just physical. The scene where the ship sails to Valinor conveys that this is as much a spiritual journey as a physical one for the Elves, that the Blessed Realm is more than just another shore, and even if Valinor was at this point still part of the physical plane(t) I'd rather have that notion in the wrong place than not at all.

If there comes in any way anything more "spiritual" in the broad sense, or "deeper", if you wish, I'd be very happy. I can't remember when I have last watched a fantasy or somesuch that dared to go "under the surface" with such topics. (And by this I do not mean "show physically what Blessed Realms look like", or, Eru forbid, "show Valar" - that is the very opposite of what I mean - but exactly exploring what the light means, what is its significance, some more of the "fundamental truths of the universe" etc.)

[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.