I’m not a Tolkien fan. I struggled through the Hobbit, skipped to the bits were Aragorn and Arwen get it on and could not be bothered to even open Simarillion. But I liked you framing and it reminded me of a book I read this summer “all quiet in the western front”. No one is pure evil, and if now you throw into the equation the capacity to beget life then something deep inside is good. It must be.
I probably am more of a fan than an average person. Hobbit was one of my most favorite children's books, and I've recently reread Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time. It still holds up, even more so, I've managed to find something new there.
Remarque and Tolkien were contemporaries, and even though there is probably nothing similar in their writing, their santiments are surprisingly close (and both were certainly traumatized by the war).
Very interesting view and great article, thank you.
Generally, I don’t think an orc baby is the problem of the series. The issue is nowadays almost the same of all others newest Hollywood productions: extremely poor writing.
I can live with changed lore, at least at some degree. I have no issues, when series tries to show the audience “the other” side. I can even ignore some decisions or actions just out of convenience. But series like Rings of Power or The Acolyte constantly insulting my intelligence.
For sure, RoP is not great, but it's not as bad as some say. They attempted to do something quite ambitious and risky from a structural point of view (combining several Tolien's epochs into one, functionally squeezing thousands of years of story into several seasons), and not always successfully. But it would probably be hard to do it significantly better. Some plot arcs are just boring and poorly written. I quite enjoy the Gandalf one, though.
Someone on YouTube very appropriately said that RoP is incredibly pompous, beautiful, and incredibly mediocre.
But what annoys me enormously in the second season is that Sauron is portrayed as a weak antagonist. Not only is he weak, but his actions are always questionable.
As my storytelling professor said during my studies, the reader (in this case, the viewer) is forgiving of the impossible—flying people, talking spiders, or god-like creatures. However, illogical, incomprehensible actions or deeds are not simply accepted.
What do you mean by weak? He is weak only in the prologue, when he is betrayed by the orcs. Afterwards, he climbs up, and in the latest two episodes he is playing Celebrimbor like a meat hand-puppet. So, there is a development arc for sure, but given that the prologue takes place before the first season, it makes narrative sense to me.
RoP creators decided (i think, conciously) to give the main heroes, Galadriel, Elrond and Sauron, character arcs. That means that they cannot be Tolkien's many thousands of years old characters, and they have to start in weird places. Galadriel is arrogant, priviledged and somewhat unexperienced (and easy to dupe), Elrond is a bit cowardly and unsure of himself, etc. It makes sense to make Sauron weak in the beginning and let him grow into full power throughout the season, culminating in the creation of One Ring.
Also, from the beginning, the creators have taken the "Dr Who" approach to Sauron: after his regeneration, he is not fully in control of his powers and memories. It's a decision (they probably could have gone the other way), but not a horrible one.
I am generally ok with stupid characters, if the stupidity is narratively justified, which I think is at least partially the case here.
The whole idea of orcs is racist. It's just obvious. An entire species that is born violent. There is no way that they can be reconciled with tabula rasa views of human nature. This whole thing is a mess.
I don't think this is obvious, it is at least debatable. Tolkien himself, in his personal life, was notably anti-racist and anti-Nazi. I think in one of his letters to his son he wrote something in the vein of "In the real world there are monsters, orcs, humans, and elves on both sides."
Another thing he often wrote is that orcs and elves are not a metaphor for humans and should not be perceived as such. One could argue that he had to create different non-human species (calling them 'races' is common but factually wrong), especially so he would be able to model a world different from our own with intrinsically evil and intrinsically good sentient creatures. He had to do it exactly because otherwise he would not be able to "be reconciled with tabula rasa views of human nature". That also would make this idea anti-racist.
That's the big issue. In fiction whole peoples can be branded with some kind of Mark of Cain. Doesn't translate well to everyday life. (Though don't get me started on pitbulls!) I guess it's just that in LotR being a spiciest is the smart move.
I did just watched the episode, and by far the biggest issue with the whole series is the pacing and tonal shifts. Orc baby is the least of the concerns.
Yeah, but the existence of orcs and elves (let alone dragons and rings of power) doesn't translate to real life, which, i think, is the point of fantasy.
Also, you can think about that from another direction: even in the made-up intrinsically evil, corrupted creatures, Tolkien finds some soul and free will. If that's not humanism, I am not sure what is.
I completely agree with the second point. The show is all over the place.
Tolkien did not write to that effect only to his son, but also in an 1938 letter to a German publisher who wanted papers (as Germans do. They really do.) about his Aryan ancestry. See for example:
I agree with Asimonov that Tolkien's work is not a racist propaganda, but I understand MacPavel's concern. I was reminded of one video essay about the 2017 movie Bright that addresses the issue. I couldn't find it (has it been removed?) but there's another video essay by the same author (Jack Saint, whom I can generally highly recommend, he treats media not unlike the way Asimonov does here) about in principal the same topic, but in particular not about fantastical humanoids but anthropomorphic animals:
I’m not a Tolkien fan. I struggled through the Hobbit, skipped to the bits were Aragorn and Arwen get it on and could not be bothered to even open Simarillion. But I liked you framing and it reminded me of a book I read this summer “all quiet in the western front”. No one is pure evil, and if now you throw into the equation the capacity to beget life then something deep inside is good. It must be.
I probably am more of a fan than an average person. Hobbit was one of my most favorite children's books, and I've recently reread Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time. It still holds up, even more so, I've managed to find something new there.
Remarque and Tolkien were contemporaries, and even though there is probably nothing similar in their writing, their santiments are surprisingly close (and both were certainly traumatized by the war).
Very interesting view and great article, thank you.
Generally, I don’t think an orc baby is the problem of the series. The issue is nowadays almost the same of all others newest Hollywood productions: extremely poor writing.
I can live with changed lore, at least at some degree. I have no issues, when series tries to show the audience “the other” side. I can even ignore some decisions or actions just out of convenience. But series like Rings of Power or The Acolyte constantly insulting my intelligence.
Thanks!
For sure, RoP is not great, but it's not as bad as some say. They attempted to do something quite ambitious and risky from a structural point of view (combining several Tolien's epochs into one, functionally squeezing thousands of years of story into several seasons), and not always successfully. But it would probably be hard to do it significantly better. Some plot arcs are just boring and poorly written. I quite enjoy the Gandalf one, though.
Someone on YouTube very appropriately said that RoP is incredibly pompous, beautiful, and incredibly mediocre.
But what annoys me enormously in the second season is that Sauron is portrayed as a weak antagonist. Not only is he weak, but his actions are always questionable.
As my storytelling professor said during my studies, the reader (in this case, the viewer) is forgiving of the impossible—flying people, talking spiders, or god-like creatures. However, illogical, incomprehensible actions or deeds are not simply accepted.
Unfortunately, RoP often has moments like this.
What do you mean by weak? He is weak only in the prologue, when he is betrayed by the orcs. Afterwards, he climbs up, and in the latest two episodes he is playing Celebrimbor like a meat hand-puppet. So, there is a development arc for sure, but given that the prologue takes place before the first season, it makes narrative sense to me.
RoP creators decided (i think, conciously) to give the main heroes, Galadriel, Elrond and Sauron, character arcs. That means that they cannot be Tolkien's many thousands of years old characters, and they have to start in weird places. Galadriel is arrogant, priviledged and somewhat unexperienced (and easy to dupe), Elrond is a bit cowardly and unsure of himself, etc. It makes sense to make Sauron weak in the beginning and let him grow into full power throughout the season, culminating in the creation of One Ring.
Also, from the beginning, the creators have taken the "Dr Who" approach to Sauron: after his regeneration, he is not fully in control of his powers and memories. It's a decision (they probably could have gone the other way), but not a horrible one.
I am generally ok with stupid characters, if the stupidity is narratively justified, which I think is at least partially the case here.
The whole idea of orcs is racist. It's just obvious. An entire species that is born violent. There is no way that they can be reconciled with tabula rasa views of human nature. This whole thing is a mess.
I don't think this is obvious, it is at least debatable. Tolkien himself, in his personal life, was notably anti-racist and anti-Nazi. I think in one of his letters to his son he wrote something in the vein of "In the real world there are monsters, orcs, humans, and elves on both sides."
Another thing he often wrote is that orcs and elves are not a metaphor for humans and should not be perceived as such. One could argue that he had to create different non-human species (calling them 'races' is common but factually wrong), especially so he would be able to model a world different from our own with intrinsically evil and intrinsically good sentient creatures. He had to do it exactly because otherwise he would not be able to "be reconciled with tabula rasa views of human nature". That also would make this idea anti-racist.
That's the big issue. In fiction whole peoples can be branded with some kind of Mark of Cain. Doesn't translate well to everyday life. (Though don't get me started on pitbulls!) I guess it's just that in LotR being a spiciest is the smart move.
I did just watched the episode, and by far the biggest issue with the whole series is the pacing and tonal shifts. Orc baby is the least of the concerns.
Yeah, but the existence of orcs and elves (let alone dragons and rings of power) doesn't translate to real life, which, i think, is the point of fantasy.
Also, you can think about that from another direction: even in the made-up intrinsically evil, corrupted creatures, Tolkien finds some soul and free will. If that's not humanism, I am not sure what is.
I completely agree with the second point. The show is all over the place.
Late to the party, but..
Tolkien did not write to that effect only to his son, but also in an 1938 letter to a German publisher who wanted papers (as Germans do. They really do.) about his Aryan ancestry. See for example:
https://lithub.com/on-the-time-j-r-r-tolkien-refused-to-work-with-nazi-leaning-publishers/
I agree with Asimonov that Tolkien's work is not a racist propaganda, but I understand MacPavel's concern. I was reminded of one video essay about the 2017 movie Bright that addresses the issue. I couldn't find it (has it been removed?) but there's another video essay by the same author (Jack Saint, whom I can generally highly recommend, he treats media not unlike the way Asimonov does here) about in principal the same topic, but in particular not about fantastical humanoids but anthropomorphic animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oR6iET6FVo