![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Confused by The Rings of Power
I'm probably hurting myself and limiting my imagination by being an old-school Tolkien fan here. But as of episode 3, I can't figure out what Rings of Power is trying to say. I can't figure out its philosophical underpinnings.
I like some parts of it very much, and they continue to be the more original parts. I love the Harfoots (I could write a whole essay on the awesomeness of that worldbuilding). Critiques about their Irish accents have some validity, but accent aside, this is amazing worldbuilding. I'm also enjoying the adventures of Arondir. These bits are easy to understand. The Harfoots are a timid and traditional people (like their Hobbit posterity), and Nori's connection to the stranger in their midst challenges that timidity and tradition. Arondir has to fight Orcs to survive and warn people—thus far, pretty simple.
But when we're with Tolkien's actual stories and characters—or nearer to them, I'm increasingly baffled by what I'm supposed to think.
Tolkien's conception of Arda is conservative and hierarchical. It basically tells you to trust in the wise, obey their authority as agents of God, and do your duty/live a good life in your proper place. Now, this isn't simplistic. There's space for judgment and conscience in determining when one of the "wise" has gone astray (ex. Sauron or Saruman). But "astray" usually includes this evil person telling you to question God or God's agents. Ex. Sauron encourages people to see the Valar as baddies. Pride is the great sin.
In The Rings of Power, we have a protagonist (Galadriel) who is made of nothing but pride. She oozes it from every pore. She behaves like an arrogant, entitled teenager who considers it an affront to show one minute of patience for anyone else. Now, on one level, this is based on source material; Tolkien wrote Galadriel as proud in her youth (though she ought to be past her youth now). And it's obviously (I think the creators have even explicitly said) intended as an arc that will move to the more staid Galadriel of The Lord of the Rings.
But how exactly are we supposed to situate what's "right" in this conception?
In Tolkienesque terms, virtually everything Galadriel is doing is wrong—very wrong, Fëanorean-level wrong, like the pride one might expect from the Men who became the Nazgûl. But is the point that our "strong female protagonist" is utterly wrong? I doubt it. (She's not wrong that Sauron is a problem, but then Boromir wasn't wrong about that either, nor Fëanor about Morgoth.) "Put the woman in her place" seems like it's not where this story is going.
So where is it going? If Galadriel, right now, is a high rebel, what is this series's philosophical stance on rebellion (the crime of Morgoth)? How wrong is she? Where is the moral center? What is the philosophy?
I guess the obvious answer is Finrod's statement that sometimes you have to touch the darkness to figure out which way is up (stars or reflected stars). This, by the way, is something Tolkien's Finrod would never, ever say. "Dabble in evil so you can figure out good" is antithetical to Tolkien's entire cosmology. But is that the cosmology even present here? And if not, how does that situate the Valar? Did they, for example, want the Noldor to defy them and chase Morgoth so that they could learn a valuable lesson? Or is it what Eru wanted and the Valar are kind of blind? And if so, do we not have the "follow the wise" philosophy much at all? And if so, what is Númenor's crime: generally being intolerant and hostile? Are you supposed to not really care about the authority of the Valar? And if so, was Sauron doing something morally acceptable in revolting against the Valar (say, post-Morgoth), and the only bad part is that he hurts people/things, not the revolt itself? (I'm okay with that reasoning, but it's antithetical to Tolkien's Arda.)
Anyway, those are some questions I'm having.
I like some parts of it very much, and they continue to be the more original parts. I love the Harfoots (I could write a whole essay on the awesomeness of that worldbuilding). Critiques about their Irish accents have some validity, but accent aside, this is amazing worldbuilding. I'm also enjoying the adventures of Arondir. These bits are easy to understand. The Harfoots are a timid and traditional people (like their Hobbit posterity), and Nori's connection to the stranger in their midst challenges that timidity and tradition. Arondir has to fight Orcs to survive and warn people—thus far, pretty simple.
But when we're with Tolkien's actual stories and characters—or nearer to them, I'm increasingly baffled by what I'm supposed to think.
Tolkien's conception of Arda is conservative and hierarchical. It basically tells you to trust in the wise, obey their authority as agents of God, and do your duty/live a good life in your proper place. Now, this isn't simplistic. There's space for judgment and conscience in determining when one of the "wise" has gone astray (ex. Sauron or Saruman). But "astray" usually includes this evil person telling you to question God or God's agents. Ex. Sauron encourages people to see the Valar as baddies. Pride is the great sin.
In The Rings of Power, we have a protagonist (Galadriel) who is made of nothing but pride. She oozes it from every pore. She behaves like an arrogant, entitled teenager who considers it an affront to show one minute of patience for anyone else. Now, on one level, this is based on source material; Tolkien wrote Galadriel as proud in her youth (though she ought to be past her youth now). And it's obviously (I think the creators have even explicitly said) intended as an arc that will move to the more staid Galadriel of The Lord of the Rings.
But how exactly are we supposed to situate what's "right" in this conception?
In Tolkienesque terms, virtually everything Galadriel is doing is wrong—very wrong, Fëanorean-level wrong, like the pride one might expect from the Men who became the Nazgûl. But is the point that our "strong female protagonist" is utterly wrong? I doubt it. (She's not wrong that Sauron is a problem, but then Boromir wasn't wrong about that either, nor Fëanor about Morgoth.) "Put the woman in her place" seems like it's not where this story is going.
So where is it going? If Galadriel, right now, is a high rebel, what is this series's philosophical stance on rebellion (the crime of Morgoth)? How wrong is she? Where is the moral center? What is the philosophy?
I guess the obvious answer is Finrod's statement that sometimes you have to touch the darkness to figure out which way is up (stars or reflected stars). This, by the way, is something Tolkien's Finrod would never, ever say. "Dabble in evil so you can figure out good" is antithetical to Tolkien's entire cosmology. But is that the cosmology even present here? And if not, how does that situate the Valar? Did they, for example, want the Noldor to defy them and chase Morgoth so that they could learn a valuable lesson? Or is it what Eru wanted and the Valar are kind of blind? And if so, do we not have the "follow the wise" philosophy much at all? And if so, what is Númenor's crime: generally being intolerant and hostile? Are you supposed to not really care about the authority of the Valar? And if so, was Sauron doing something morally acceptable in revolting against the Valar (say, post-Morgoth), and the only bad part is that he hurts people/things, not the revolt itself? (I'm okay with that reasoning, but it's antithetical to Tolkien's Arda.)
Anyway, those are some questions I'm having.