|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
May 16 2022, 7:22pm
Post #26 of 34
(640 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Tolkien influencers" versus "Tolkien scholars"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At the blog of John Rateliff (one of the best true Tolkien scholars out there) the group of people who were invited to the Amazon Rings of Power event was described as "Tolkien Influencers" rather than "Tolkien scholars" and I think that is a fair description. Here is a list of the individual (including a short description or links to what they said about the event):
https://www.tolkienguide.com/...39291#forumpost39291
I obviously don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Tolkien scholarship, but of those individuals. Olsen is the only one that I know of who has actually produced any Tolkien scholarship at all (though I might just not be aware of some of the others). And to say that opinion about Olsen's scholarship is mixed would be generous. Squire pulled out the one positive statement in Jason Fisher's review of Olsen's book on The Hobbit most of the rest of the review is scathingly negative. For instance, he writes:
"Olsen’s book is one whose value depends very much on who is reading it. For scholars and advanced readers already immersed in Tolkien and his fictional world (for example, anyone likely to be reading reviews in Tolkien Studies), its value is unfortunately minimal."
"This is, for me, the fundamental defect of Olsen’s book. The majority of it comes across like a crib for The Hobbit, rehearsing the plot points of each chapter in tedious detail and unjustifiable length."
"There are no great revelations, no substantial scholarly discoveries."
"When he is not summarizing the plot, the interpretations the author offers are usually obvious or superficial, often simply restating what has already been said quite explicitly in the novel itself (for ex-ample, Gandalf’s appraisal near the end of the novel that Bilbo has changed, on which more below). In addition, Olsen frequently talks down to his readers, or so it seems to this reader."
"The book’s repetitious style will be the most troublesome flaw for some readers. Olsen continually repeats the same points, beating out a redundant tattoo. The worst of them by far is on the subject of Bilbo’s dual Baggins/Took nature, which appears as a section heading more than a dozen times by my count (17, 39, 64, 69, 92, 111, 132, 161, 172,193, 211, 279, 297)."
"Olsen’s book follows the style, arrangement, and manner of a pedagogue stubbornly repeating the same points to increasingly inattentive students, hoping they will eventually pay attention and the points will stick. What is worse, from my perspective, is that Olsen’s observations are so seldom new."
"There are other slips as well. For instance, Olsen tells his readers that the complete first edition text of “Riddles in the Dark” is printed in Rateliff’s History of the Hobbit (89). But Rateliff prints the first
draft, not the first edition. Two pages later, Olsen confuses the draft and first edition again."
He does go on to praise a few things about the book, but clearly, he is not impressed with Olsen as a scholar.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
May 16 2022, 7:34pm
Post #27 of 34
(633 views)
Shortcut
|
I stopped reading about the preview event after coming across a reference to Olsen "holding court," so I didn't get a good sense of exactly who was there. Not that I've heard of most of those people, either, but that means little since I don't keep up with the world of Tolkien explainers or influencers on YouTube and social media.
I was trying to be nice-ish about Olsen in this thread because I recently snarked about his presence at the event (as you know, since I did so on your forum  ), and I think it can be lame when Internet nobodies habitually complain about well-known "ascended fans," but ... yeah. You'll get no disagreement from me.
(This post was edited by Eldy on May 16 2022, 7:37pm)
|
|
|
Wainrider
Rivendell
May 17 2022, 3:31am
Post #28 of 34
(602 views)
Shortcut
|
I fear that you are right. Afterwards they will claim ignorance of why many people have issues with their show I guarantee it.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Rohan
May 17 2022, 4:10am
Post #29 of 34
(599 views)
Shortcut
|
I fear that you are right. Afterwards they will claim ignorance of why many people have issues with their show I guarantee it.
That's not the pattern. In the hypothetical event that it is not a wonderful adaptation and success for all and as beloved as Jackson's Lord of the Rings, far from claiming ignorance, other productions in recent years have demonstrated a strong trend of certainty about why: the fans.
|
|
|
DeadRabbits
Rohan
May 18 2022, 8:16am
Post #30 of 34
(537 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This sounds very promising indeed
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I recently listened to the latest episode of The Other Minds and Hands podcast, hosted by Corey Olsen and Maggie Parke, in which they talked about the Amazon event and meeting the showrunners. Their enthusiasm for the show seem 100 per cent genuine and the showrunners most certainly know their stuff.
Judging by what has been posted on social media, most of the other invitees seem to share Corey and Maggie's optimism. Sure, we don't know what's in store, but these reports are making me even more excited for the show.
Now I'm just waiting for them to be able to talk about what the showrunners actually said during the meetup.
Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought
|
|
|
Junesong
Rohan
May 18 2022, 11:26am
Post #31 of 34
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
My thoughts exactly!
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
InTheChair
Rohan
May 18 2022, 8:20pm
Post #32 of 34
(501 views)
Shortcut
|
|
May have to wait a bit for that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now I'm just waiting for them to be able to talk about what the showrunners actually said during the meetup.
It appears from the collected reporting of this event, that they've been told they can't reveal anything about the show, but feel free to share what you thought about the show runners
|
|
|
hatster
Rohan
Jun 2 2022, 2:20am
Post #33 of 34
(382 views)
Shortcut
|
But I share your qualms and glad to see you too have them. Good to see you are still around, Squire!
The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning.
(This post was edited by hatster on Jun 2 2022, 2:22am)
|
|
|
The Dude
Rivendell
Jun 2 2022, 11:24pm
Post #34 of 34
(345 views)
Shortcut
|
but here is a decent video on this topic which I watched a couple of weeks ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yzOGXychE). No, do not worry, this a not from some fandom-rant channel (the start of the video is a little bit cringe however), and I actually do not agree with the presenter on all points, but what he says starting at 09:00 about the corporate "language of world-building", the reduction of Tolkien's grand myth into another fandom wikia to be exploited, this certainly rings true.
As I have indicated multiple times before, the only scenario in which this show could be justified artistically is if for some reason Payne and McKay were the greatest "Tolkienian" writers of their generation, nay since the passing of Tolkien himself. But that would require entirely different circumstances, not just another producer than the Bezos behemoth but a different (consumer) society altogether. Otherwise the point is simply escaping into the stunted copy of a copy (Hobbit films) of a copy (LOTR films), into the HR-approved derivative ideas of two unknown, corporate American screenwriters. Now granted, there are still many different degrees of quality when it comes to "nerdy" world-building entertainment, so we shall see if the final product is laughably bad (even to a wider audience) or simply passable popcorn amusement. Middle-earth, however, deserves better...
|
|
|
|
|
