Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TIMOTHY F BRYANT's avatar

I agree with many points above. I submit there are other considerations that should be included in any well-reasoned analysis of some of the criticisms being made of this new Amazon product.

Tolkien's work is literature. Literature is work of superior artistic merit. Literature and art from the past reflects the culture and zeitgeist in which it was created. This provides invaluable context for our own time, and our own art. It provides an understanding of the time and culture in which it was created, and of the intention of the individual who created it. Some works transcend the time in which they were created. Tolkien's work is arguably one of those.

The alteration of existing and often beloved literature or art by commercial interests to reflect the contemporary world, to reflect the values of those commercial forces altering them, or to signal virtues that are clearly outside the original artistic intent and source material can and should be viewed as the legitimate problem here.

Tolkien's work has been enjoyed since 1937. His world, and the human and non-human races that live in it, and the history, languages and lore that comprise it have depth. Tolkien fans who have issues with a dwarf queen without a beard, the arguably unnecessary alteration of Galadriel's history, or the apparent and absurd spotlessness of the costumes seem to me to have reasonable concerns that are clearly separate from issues of diversity and inclusion. It is in the best interests of the corporate entities that are responsible for making these products to portray any such criticism as toxic.

The obsession with the acquisition and alteration of established IP has taken precedence over creating new stories and franchises that reflect today's world. If Fantasy and Sci-Fi have race problems - well, by all means buy the license for something of our time, or create something new and representative of the world we live in instead of buying and changing existing literature and IP. The reason this is done is because the corporate entities view established IPs with existing and large fanbases as cashcows, not as art or literature worthy of respect in and of themselves.

Alcott's Little Women has been adapted to film 6 times and to TV 11 times...would the same criticisms apply?

Expand full comment
Sarah Coleman's avatar

Excellent.

Expand full comment

No posts