Dr. Olsen, can we use the word "canon" as a definition of everything that Tolkien wrote including different versions of the same stories and "non-canon" as something that had never appeared in his works?
@@DamTheAbsolute And what do you mean by "maintain the integrity"? Can't a character still feel like the same character even if they do some different actions? Or can't they feel like they changed too much even if their actions remain pretty close to the original? If so, then in what sense did labeling the former "non-canon" and the latter "canon" help maintain character integrity?
@@jj48 Man, leave it be! It really isn't that hard to understand the worth of canon. For one thing people adapting it are presented (in Tolkien's case) with a great outline that supports them immensly in creating an appealing product. It's also a guardrail which shows the consumers of such products (us) wheather the adaption is faithful or if the "adaptors" have made it a different thing all together that only ressembles the original lore in name but nothing more (Rings of Power imo). Which adapting choices are faithful and which are not depends on the personal opinion of course. This gives room for discussions which happen all over RUclips. Still, canon is a great base on which discussion of a show's quality can be held.
Corey spent a lot of time talking about publishers, and i agree, but I think it's important to strongly note how WEIRD Tolkien's publishing situation was compared to modern writers. I mean this; Tolkien's unpublished (during his lifetime) and "incomplete" works are so extensive, i cant think of another writer who wrote so much about a world that was never published AND then later published after his or her death. He's pretty unique in that regard? If anyone has a writer similar, let me know, because it's fascinating
I'm sure there are a huge amount of authors that have unpublished works in their worlds. They just don't have the Tolkien level of interest in uncovering those writings. Or they're still around writing it. GRRM has easily written close to if not more on his world. Same with Robert Jordan. Steven Erikson has long eclipsed the content that Tolkien published or didn't have published combined. This scenario is different now than it was with Tolkien - to an incomparable extent.
@@edrik3521ah no, i am talking about authors who have had a huge amount of their writings published after their death. Every writer (fantasy in particular) likely has huge amounts of unpublished works that fans have not seen, but who are those writers who have had all that work published after their passing? I can't think of many...if you know of any
You can say the same for so many authors, GRRM explaining his books every few days in random tv interviews so? What was published is canon, unless it's changed (Tolstoy revisited and rewrote large parts of War and Peace for example). What Tolkien said in some letter to someone somewhere is not canon. No need to be Profe$$or Amazon to know this. The Hobbit and LOTR (latest published versions) are absolutely canon. Saying otherwise is absurd. Everything else, including the Silmarillion is debatable.
@@bdleo300 Well letters were written by Tolkien himself and in most of them he explains some misconceptions, so they are in fact canon, even tough in published versions they are shorten. What you cannot consider canon is material published or writen based on notes author left, while warping those notes to creative a narration for completly original ideas and stories that original author didn't even wrote. Even Tolkien's son admitted that some of his fater notes had to be rewriten and modified to fit already existing materials in The Hobbit and LOTR, becasue those notes were written far before he even started writing LOTR and that's why he discarded them.
Dune, by Frank Herbert . . . the later books were written by his son and a collaborator based off extensive background notes (reportedly) discovered after Frank Herbert's unexpected death. The legitimacy of Brian Herbert's later extrapolation of these original notes is hotly contended . . . opinion, within the community, is very divided but civil. Remains to be seen if that civility will survive when the Dune Movie spin off TV shows get aired - a) because they are based on Brian Herbert's version of Dune mythology and many of the people who rejected his books simply never read them, so never bothered to argue about any of it (they are happy so long as Dune itself remains untouched in it's core themes), and b) how faithfully HBO adapt those works from the books, because a poor adaptation will (ironically) unite the community in rejecting the adaptation (as it would offend both the Frank Herbert purists and the, for want of a better word, Brian Herbert heretics)
Indeed, especially this self-proclaimed "Tolkien Professor" who deigns to tell us unenlightened beings what subjective opinions we can have (while everything he spews is absolute, objective truth, of course) and even what we should or shouldn't be ashamed of! Thank you so much for the consideration, Mr. Olsen, and thank you for being such a smarmy, condescending and wholly insufferable prick! I hope you enjoy losing dozens of fans and longtime followers for the sake of a mediocre Amazon show. 🙂
In J.R.R. Tolkien's last will and testament, Christopher was appointed literary executor and granted "full power to publish, edit, alter, rewrite, or complete any work of [his father's] which may be unpublished at [his] death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works". that makes what he published also as much canon as if JRR Tolkien himself published it. no current living person may do so since Christopher Tolkien did not grant those rights further. So the argument would be still everything published ( since the Tolkien estate actually has enough money to publish whatever they want anyway ).
If we're going with, "Canon is everything published," though, then we have to seriously ask ourselves what the point of looking at canon is. No one's claiming that any movies or shows were made by Tolkien himself, so simply having a list isn't helping much in that regard. If we instead mean that we want all the details within a project to match what's in the canon, then it seems pretty silly to include in our definition works that contradict each other.
@@jj48 Yeah, people say "canon" when they are thinking something like "continuity with LotR" (and sometimes that means the PJ movies!), but taking "everything" to be "the canon".... it's not even in continuity with itself (cough unstain'd Galadriel and Celeborn the Teler cough)
@@DavidRoberts Though, it'll always be part of my headcanon that Gandalf wanted to set Legolas on fire to melt the snow on Caradhras, and that Hobbits who live in multi-story houses throw their dishes out of the upper windows to avoid having to walk down stairs with them.
I wholeheartedly agree with the inaccuracy of the use of the word "canon", when discussing Tolkien legendarium. What I do not agree with is the concept of adaptations getting a pass at ignoring all of the writings of Tolkien in order to insert their own subcreations and pass them off as inspired by him. The criticism against Rings of Power on account to its inaccuracy to the lore is valid regardless of the existence of a canon. I hold it to the same standard as any adaptation of the Trojan War. There is no "canonical" version of the legend, but mutiple ones. Yet when it comes to adaptations there are good ones, who are capable to toy with the conflicting accounts while doing a good job at transmitting the ethos and pathos of a whole people who authored them, and there are Hollywood travesties like Troy, who strip the legend of any of its spirit to give us an empty, mindless action movie with no respect for its source material. When I object to Rings of Power I'm not invoking authority, I'm invoking the common rules of storytelling and the very definitions of adaptation and dramatization. Yes, there is a tendency to use the word canon improperly in this debate. But the misuse of one word, does not invalidate the debate itself.
Very well said. Very often people who defend the show misuse the concept of canon as a shield, when the argument is not about canon at all, but about the quality of the end product. Of course, canon is part of that discussion, because if you take something that is good, and make changes that downgrade it, then people will question why you made these changes. People tend to not question Jackson's films moving away from canon where they did, because the quality remained high.
@@evangelospaschopoulos9199 How can you two say this, when Tolkien made it explicitly clear in his letter that he did not appreciate rewrites? Not one but two different letters he was extremely upset that people were rewriting his work. What justification do you have to say his canon doesn't matter?
While I appreciate what Corey is attempting to do, I fear he has fallen prey to a common mistake people untrained in rhetoric make-the straw man argument. I don’t know any serious critic of ROP who has argued canon=published before death. And no one is arguing Tolkien didn’t write anything at all. Corey kicked the hornets nest when he said there is no such thing as Canon in Tolkien. That is not the real issue. The real issue and question we are struggling with vis-à-vis ROP is whether an adaptation is faithful/truthful/pick your adjective to the author’s vision and story and worldview. Canon is just a lazy attempt to trying to address the question ( if true to Canon, then true to story). I fear we will continue to have these struggles until the show runners are finally able to explain what they had the right to represent in the show, what they didn’t have a right to represent on the show, and what the rules were for going against the story as published at least in the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion.
Crikey, i almost wish i could get as worked up as prople in these comments!! I just love reading tolkien legendarium, and love watching cool fantasy stuff on telly, i'm a simple guy!! I just wonder if you guys and girls who get so defensive of it wouldnt benefit from being a tiny bit more understanding and phlegmatic. I adore everything about the legendarium but even i acknowledge theyre just books and mythology, why in the name if all thats holy do lots of people get genuinely personal to others about it...theyre fantastical everyone, theyre escapism and wonderment..please dont lose your sense and decency in ranting and attacking about them. Remember what a religious man JRR was, and also the fellowship and friendship that runs through his works, surely if you love frodo and sam, or legolas and gimli or beleg, or bilbo and thorin...then you should be able to act with the honour and decency that they and so many other legendar ium character's do
I just wonder what all these people are going to do when all of Tolkien's writings are out of copyright, and really get abused... I personally think that RoP is closer to the being true to lore than a lot of Jackson's stuff, but even if I'm wrong there, I can guarantee it is way closer than most all of the stuff that will come out based on it after copyright is expired...
I think some people do also tend to forget how much of tolkien goes onto film even if it's juxtaposed in other places, Jackson and his writers and producers and cast all love the books (or at least learnt to during it) and I genuinely think there is respect and engagement from these writers too, I just think they've been told to put all the coolest stuff and characters in to make the most impact full TV, which I understand completely. As for out of copyright....oh boy...that could be challenging, how about Turin Turambar, the Musical: an uplifting tale of positivity, success and requited love!!!
Dont lie to my face then. Why do you people always pretend to be victims when you're in the wrong? Genuine question. Pretending you have decency when you call others names and tell them they should off themselves is just the highest point of hypocrisy
@JohnSmith-zb7ri who's this aimed at my friend? If it's me then I'm afraid you have mistaken my comment, if it's in support of my statement then I'm afraid it has a hint of the kind of incendiary language I'm worried about, if you could clarify the intended recipient then I would love to chat
I am late to this party. So, I will try to be brief. A. Olsen makes some good points. 1. The use of the word “canons” in the Zimmerman letter is misunderstood and misapplied by some of Olsen’s opponents. 2. No one actually possess authority to establish “canon” for Tolkien and in fact no list of what is or isn’t canon is actually generally accepted by all readers of Tolkien. B. Olsen makes some big mistakes: 1. Olsen fails to explain other important definitions of “canon” (which I’ll not go into at the moment) that are perhaps contributing to the atmosphere of confusion. 2. Olsen horribly mischaracterizes and underplays the significance of the songbook “The Road Goes Ever On”. It is by no means just a book of sheet music (which wasn’t even written by JRRT.) Actually, the introductory essay by Tolkien analyzing the Elvish poetry and translating it to English bears greatly upon matters touched on by the Amazon series: the life and character of Galadriel and the Palantiri as well. 3. It is unfair and incorrect to lump together those who criticize Amazon’s series for its lack of canonicity and lore accuracy with those who claim only Tolkien works published during his lifetime should be accepted as canon. In fact very many of those who are making lore or canonicity arguments against the series are objecting precisely to the fact that the series doesn’t draw upon “The Silmarillion” “Unfinished Tales” or the various volumes of “The History of Middle-earth” . People such as myself take the wider view of the Legendarium and that is precisely why we detest that the Stranger has turned out to be Gandalf instead of a Blue Wizard. What Olsen says amounts to a straw man argument and is even somewhat condescending and therefore offensive. On my channel I love thinking and talking about the incomplete and undetermined nature of Tolkien's Legendarium but I also sharply criticize Amazon's series.
Yeah, I and many others have also pointed out how the argument presented in this video is ultimately just an empty strawman. But don't expect Olsen to ever acknowledge it or retort. He is actually self-important enough to believe he's settled all debate with this nonsense.
Well, it is unfair. But to be honest, accusation of hereticism when it comes to adaptation is an insult to Art, especially from novel to cinema. Some of the most lauded movies ever made are terrible adaptations of great (or mediocre) novels. Adherence to the lore with poor writing would have made this serie a kitsch fanservice-y work, no doubt defended by fans for purity. If anything, I'm glad that it turned out how it is. RoP suffers from being first and foremost, a bad TV-Show.
I think it is particular value to keep in mind that traditional access to content involves the creator, editor, and publisher. Our “public” access to the creators content will be through those filers
With the greatest of respect, I cannot agree. And I’ll try to explain why. To say there is no canon regarding Tolkien is clearly absurd. There are matters where there is no debate (or granted a significantly large consensus of conviction) to be had; some things Tolkien wrote within his Legendarium where you can say yes, that’s Tolkien canon right there. Examples, yes to hobbits, dragons and wargs, no to lizard men, zombies and hydra. The actions of the Second and Third Ages were set in Eriador and Beleriand, not Narnia or Discworld. The King returning in the Third Age was Aragorn, not Boromir or Castamir. You see? Albeit on a possibly narrow definition of canon, some of the writing is indisputable. The larger question which I happily concede is perfectly valid is where may canon start and end in relation to the author’s unpublished work and changing ideas as he got older and revised his initial thoughts. But no canon at all? No.
This is honestly just common sense. The only reason a "professor" would suggest otherwise would be if he had an agenda. Do you think a proper Tolkien scholar like Tom Shippey would make sensationalist statements like Olsen has been doing to try and discredit legitimate criticism of Rings of Power? Of course not.
@@JohnSmith-zb7rihis point was Tolkien changed things several times throughout his life. Some of which were published and some were rejected by his publisher. Which of those is more canon than the other?
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri the original writer that was constantly changing his stories. Which version do YOU deem canon? See the issue? As was clearly said by Corey, you need an authority to establish canon. The authority (Tolkien) did NOT do this, so it’s YOU that are taking the authority to establish the canon in your own mind, which is ok, but don’t project your opinion of what you believe is the authoritative version on others by claiming ‘canon’. Tolkien used the word Legendarium ILO canon and think we should do the same. The Legendarium is everything Tolkien wrote, contradictions and all, and is beyond the bonds of a constrained concept like canon. Similar in religion, canon is a very controversial and problematic concept and only used to tell someone else that they’er wrong. I’ve been reading Tolkien for decades and remember when the PJ movies came out. We talked about many lore & Legendarium issues but no one talked about Tolkien ‘canon’ until ROP came around and now there are all these little (often young) internet Tolkien “experts” start throwing the word around to tell others with deeper lore knowledge that they are wrong. So in your personal canon, when did the wizards first arrive in Middle Earth? The Legendarium says there are three to four different correct answers. My favorite is the last one he wrote where they came in full power in the first age and Melian was their chief.
Great discussion. Two things come to mind: First, it's important to note how Tolkien frames his stories as history and folklore, not just the product of his imagination--even if we know that the legendarium is ultimately the latter. The Lord of the Rings, for example, is the account of Frodo and Sam, while the Valaquenta is "according to the lore of the Eldar." As someone who studies history and (to a lesser extent) folklore, I can tell you: none of our narratives are certain or stable. They are all based on limited perspectives and fallible memories. Tolkien would have known this. Another layer of complication is added with translation, which is necessarily imperfect, and the legendarium is also supposed to be translated. So, if we imagine that everything in the legendarium refers to real events, we have to accept that we only have access to representations of those events, not the unmediated reality as it actually occurred. That seems to me to create an unusually generous opening for retellings of the stories. The Rings of Power even appears to nod to these ideas when the story of the origin of mithril is said to be apocryphal, or when Adar tells Galadriel that her knowledge of what happened to Morgoth's crown is wrong. Second, this whole discussion is about the authority of the author. One the one hand, it's clear that Tolkien had some sensitivity about adaptation of his work. On the other, in his famous comments on allegory, he's uncomfortable with the idea of the tyranny of the author. Part of what constitutes evil in the legendarium is the erasure of multiplicity: the domination of one authority and one view over all others. Does this also apply to the idea of canon and adaptation?
This is nothing but an empty strawman. The vast majority of the critics of Rings of Power aren't even employing the term "canon" in the ways Olsen is suggesting here (i.e. to imply that only the published works can be considered a legitimate source). And guess what? The showrunners of Rings of Power themselves have used the word "canon" in reference to Tolkien's writings, thereby affirming its existence, and even said that season 2 of their TV show would contain more "canonical material". Even THEY admit that there are things for which there is a basis in Tolkien's writings (published or unpublished), and things which they completely made up themselves. So why do you go to such lengths to gaslight the fanbase into believing otherwise? If you want to talk about lack of integrity, look no further than that. You're essentially using this strawman argument to imply that "since Tolkien wrote multiple versions of certain events and concepts, ANYTHING GOES when adapting his works!" which is not only utterly absurd but also rather reprehensible as a scholar. Honestly, I actually used to appreciate your work and follow your podcasts, but ever since you've become this smarmy, disingenuous Rings of Power cheerleader, I simply can't bring myself to anymore. I'm not going to assert you're being paid by Amazon since I've no evidence either way, but it frankly doesn't matter, since I've lost all respect for you anyway.
@@TolkienArda65 I wouldn't know, as I just talk about RoP because I enjoy discussing Tolkien and Tolkien adaptations. If you know of a way to get Amazon to pay me for doing what I'd be doing anyway, I'd love to hear it.
An author revising his own canon to bring it to a greater consistency with his overall vision is really the opposite of him not having a canon at all. Future authors coming in and attaching themselves to the work like parasites so they can smuggle their own ideas- this is not something to be defended, and the fact that you've sold your soul in the attempt to do so elicits nothing but my loathing and disgust. Good evening, sir. I hope never to see you in my feed again.
At no point he says that. Neither the creators of the show. But when people come to a video with pre-concieved ideas of hate, regardless the content, multiple and colorful readings of the same message can be drawn.
Rings of Power definitely isnt canon, under any definition of the word. The writing alone would offend Tolkien, he was very particular despite being for the idea of others writing stories within his world. Its directly copied scenes from Jacksons films, and butchered near everything.
It's as Canon as any adaption. You really think Tolkien would feel any differently about The Hobbit films, The LOTR trilogy, The Rankin Bass Tolkien films or The 1978 LOTR, He probably would have had big issues with all of them.
@@jj48 They're claiming its not canon and this professor is arguing canon doesnt exist. So if it does not exist if my adaption had a car or tank then would that be A ok? No because that asinine
I deeply respect Professor Olsen as a reader of Tolkien, and I’m glad his critics are getting a schooling here. I appreciate his efforts to think analytically about the adaptational choices made by the RoP creators. It’s a great example of how responsible scholars think and speak. That said…I found the show painful to watch 😂
I think Professor Olsen would sympathise with you, and many also had similar feelings when the film trilogy was coming out and then the Hobbit films after.
I think the actual issue is that certain people confuse “head canon”-their own interpolations to a text they make so as to make the text make sense to them-and the actual text itself. In other words, some of these critics are attempting to dominate the writers’ actual words with their own thoughts instead of taking the writers’ text as the basis for criticism. If a writer’s work cannot be understood as a logical, emotional, or thematic whole without the reader (or watcher) inserting numerous interpolations or by ignoring one element of the text because they don’t like it, then the reader ought to write his own story rather than insist that “what the author meant to say was…”
Honestly the reason I love Corey and his explanation is that they are actually thought through. Ever since 2020 everyone has suddenly taken on this self-proclaimed Gospel expert on everyone and everything on earth. It really bugs me as many are arguing in a way that their arguments are play ground fights and writing headlines and RUclips thumbnails "RINGS OF POWER SHOWRUNNERS HATE TOLKIEN!!", and they have very little intellectual formation. These works were made by a scholar, historian, linguist and mythologist. If you are gonna do a dive in and breakdown of a Tolkien adaptation you need to take all of those things that Tolkien was and loved into account or else you'll just get everything completely wrong. A lot of these fanbases give me cult of Morgoth vibes - sacrificing the dignity of a person just to win an argument and that makes me feel pretty ill.
I thought you loved him because he lies his @ss off every time he opens his mouth. Or maybe because all the videos calling out his lies word by word while also giving the source of the information that proves him a liar, are very funny.
I think the bothers me, with you mentioning the “playground fights,” is how easily insults and the like get slung around. Shill, hater, “not a fan,” “true fan.” These are such loaded terms and just get thrown out. Why does this have to be a battleground? Why does each side have to try to stomp the other down? Anecdotal, but a close friend and I have had disagreements on movies and shows. Star Wars, Marvel, etc. Never once have we insinuated anything like that against the other, we’ve simply acknowledged that we have different tastes, and have had some good discussions around media and what we liked and didn’t like and why, with respect for each other. I don’t understand the constant mudslinging at Corey and calling him a liar, personally, as he approaches these things also from a different angle (notably, a teaching university professor with degrees in Medieval lit, iirc) and he loves to look at themes, thus this channel. And whether someone agrees with him or not, he has raised excellent questions about other stuff before, and my favorite of his questions when analyzing (especially as I work through “Exploring the Lord of the Rings”), is along the lines of “well, why do we assume that element to be the case? Is it from the text here? One of the later books of notes from Christopher? Our own imaginations? The movies?” It such a neat question to pause and ask and, from what I can tell, can lead to some interesting discussions.
Very interesting video. One thing that makes me smile is the way Tolkien himself wrestled with a shifting vision of the interaction with Gollum from the original version of The Hobbit to a later version that fit better with the Lord of the Rings. By framing Bilbo as the author of the work with a shifting version of the story as part of his relationship to the ring in The Prologue it neatly addresses it and gives even more power in the alternative retelling. The references to Frodo carrying on the record of the history in book form mirrors in some ways the works completed by his son. Seeing the works as fictional legends, folklore and a complex history with all the complexities that a retelling of history brings makes the stories even more rich and rewarding to study.
Great video as always. And the same toxic haters in the comments as always. To them i can only say: Go back to your kindergarden and leave the adults alone.
'Hey I am real person, first name last name string of numbers and I love this product and support it. I am real human who enjoys content. I am excited for next product.'
An excellent discussion on the use and misuse of the word “canon” by so many internet wannabe Tolkien “experts”. Whether the rings of power is a brilliant, mediocre or just plain bad tv show is another discussion entirely, irrespective of any alleged deviation from “canon”.
I don't see any problem with people not liking the deviations from cannon in Rings of Power. Every adaptation has deviations from its source. You don't need to be a big Tolkien expert to asess aspects which are original to the show and don't appear in Tolkien's works.
@@Baadan37 But see the issue is people like that can’t have a discussion beyond “that’s valid” “thats not valid”. Instead of discussing the nuances of how the show runners (or any other adaptation) came to a conclusion, it’s just “That’s not what really happened! I hate that it’s different!” And…to be blunt that’s just not an interesting conversation.
@@Baadan37 There's nothing wrong with recognizing those deviations or even not liking them. However, I've seen many people point to the mere fact that such deviations exist as proof positive that the writers don't know Tolkien or that the show is bad simply because of the changes. That is to say, some people act as if having differences is somehow objectively bad, when it's far more subjective than that.
@@TheJmack90 I think that you are simplifying things a little bit. I don't think that these people you mention just hate it because it is different from what Tolkien wrote. They PJ movies had deviations as well which were much better recieved by the audiences.
@@Baadan37 Here’s the thing, I don’t really care to have this type of conversation because it just leads to “I don’t like Rings of Power”. And again, nothing wrong with that, but it’s well known that there are people who don’t like the show. We get it.
And last time I checked there is actually zero times when the wizard Gandalf comes to oppose Sauron in the 2nd age. So you can’t just use the excuse of saying he changed his mind there. Olorin makes a very brief appearance in a tale about the Elessar stone. But is that what they are going with? Is that seriously better to you? Than going with the most widely known and beloved version of his character origin?
@@Adamadam-zc6pe So are parts when Galadriel and Celeborn go to Lorien in the Third Age and take up guardianship there. And parts about them being in Aman or Beleriand in the First Age. These indicate Third Age: "...Olórin (who was known in Middle-earth as Mithrandir) brought it with him out of the West." "For the years of her exile began to lie heavy on the Lady of the Noldor, and she longed for news of her kin and for the blessed land of her birth, and yet was unwilling to forsake Middle-earth." "‘Yet for a little while that might be amended, if the Elessar should return. For a little, until the Days of Men are come.’" "‘For surely the Valar are now removed and Middle-earth is far from their thought, and all who cling to it are under a shadow.’" Mithrandir is a Third Age name. The years of Galadriel's exile would be weighing on her in the Third Age, rather than the Second where she rejected pardon, desiring to stay. It will be, relatively speaking, a 'little while' until the Days of Men (the Fourth Age). The Valar being now removed seems indicative of Aman being removed from the 'physical' world.
If we are going to talk about authority, then you have none compared to Tolkien, whose words make it very clear how he would feel about the way adaptations like Rings of Power have treated his works and writings: "The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."
@@ThomasLambeir I did watch it, which is why I know that he conveniently left out most of the quote, specifically the part that illustrates Tolkien's thoughts on adaptations like Rings of Power: "the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."
@@ThomasLambeir Yes, I'll admit I wasn't directly addressing Corey's main point in this video with that comment, but that's okay, others have already done so and satisfactorily debunked it in other comments.
I recently read Leaf By Niggle. And its such an insight into Tolkien's ever-changing writings on Middle-Earth. It was always growing or scuttled by outside sources. You're right, canon isn't applicable to a man who often changed his mind about his own stories ❤️
Leaf by Niggle is a very powerful story. As an artist, it tells me how to love my art but not at the expense of life and community. I like to ask the canon people if the original Star Wars is canon over the remakes from the 90? It’s impossible to answer so the word canon is not appropriate because there is no 1 authority, including Lucus who would tell everyone that the muppet infused remake is the ‘canon’ version, and would respectfully disagree.
Right! Like, we don’t even know who Gil-Galad’s dad is lololol. There’s contradictions like that galore. These ppl have been whining on Reddit since before the show even started…when they found out there was a black hobbit
@@NicoleStevensHays11x yes, I’m being called a post modernist nihilist because I don’t think canon is an appropriate term for Tolkien study. It’s really sad and hilarious at the same time.
Get their asses Corey. The hater trolls are just that. Never forget they are a vocal minority. Love Rings and Realms and appreciate all you do. Keep up the good work!
@@ahimsamovies4484 strange. I was just listening to Alan Sisto, Sara Brown and James Tauber who were saying how audience numbers are up from Season 1 and it was topped rated show on Prime outside the USA.
It’s been 3 years. You shoulda moved on AGES ago. You wouldn’t catch me watching ANY show even 1 episode past when I decided I disliked it. Yet u cling ons stay here, changing nothing, accomplishing nothing, tantruming over a show u should have turned off forever ago. It’s too bad u have no real life or responsibilities
@@bdleo300 awe, did u think the show was made with u in mind? NO SHOW is made to cater to far right lost causes, let alone Tolkien police or gatekeepers. You can complain until the show has been over for 20 years. You’ll have nothing to for. Nothing will change. The mainstream is well aware adaptations are different than writings, enjoys the show, and would never be so bothered by the writings of a dead dude or a single tv show
Someone should make an adaptation where Sam is a coward and a cheat, and Gollum becomes a faithful companion, while Frodo uses the Ring to kind of turn Super Saiyan and destroy Sauron to save the world.
Someone should make a version where Gollum sprinkles some crumbs on Sam’s jacket so Frodo will think he stole all of their food and send him away to his death, and Sam shouldn’t defend himself at all and just sort of leave despite knowing he didn’t eat the food …wait
Yes. and Yes. and Yes! Thank you! The Legendarium was indeed Tolkien's life work, from before WW1 to the day he died. He lived it, breathed it, changed it, came back to it. All those ideas....we are blessed with his Letters, and his son Christopher, for opening up the canon of worms, so we can SEE how this subcreation was in a constant state of creation.
These seems like it's addressing an argument no one is really having. Is anyone debating whether The Silmarillion is canon or not? It seems like the contention is that Rings of Power alters the canon to it's own ends. If, as you're arguing, we can't defer to Tolkien's published work as an ABSOLUTE authority, surely we can defer to it as having SOME authority, or to the point, MORE authority than the canon as interpreted by journeymen screenwriters in service of a billion dollar corporation.
It seems you have your arguments backwards, there. I've heard quite a few discussions over whether or not The Silmarillion should be considered canon. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone claim that Rings of Power is canon.
This argument comes down to a personal dislike of the corporation funding the project, and a refusal to grant it any authority to interpret Tolkien’s work. It’s just anti-corporate bias. Take the work on its merit and stop pointing at Jeff Bezos as the issue.
There’s threads on Reddit of u ppl hating on the show before it even aired. Blew my mind when I stumbled on them. Freaking tantrums over black hobbits. A bunch of whiners came to ROP expecting it to be some extension of detestable far-right politics & identity politics. Pretty hilarious… a minority in society think TV shows exist to cater to their mental illnesses
@@NicoleStevensHays11x And for good reason, the trailers were SOO Weird, and the people working on it... It looked like we had another "Disney Star Wars" situation on our hands. And it all turned out to be true. Exactly what people expected, maybe somehow even worse considdering the costumes, cast, acting, and writing. All of it was on a whole other level of trash.
I like to define “canon” in this context as “fans arguing over whether or not imaginary events happened to imaginary people in an imaginary universe”. As much as I appreciate a solid narrative, some of this “canon” debate is getting absurd.
Why can't I have a Toyota camry in Rings of Power? After all "There’s No Such Thing Really As Canon In Tolkien" . Those fans sure are being obtuse on what "imaginary events happened to imaginary people in an imaginary universe"
@@NicoleStevensHays11x You care what I think, I care what I think, so thats bare minimum of two and the fact that you're upset at fans arguing about imaginary things shows me that there are alot of wiggle room to argue.
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri lmao don’t lay that at MY feet. I definitely don’t care what you think. I’ve been in breast cancer diagnosis & treatment since October 2023 for grade 3 (most aggressive one), stage 3A breast cancer at just age 39. I’ve got a 40% chance of being dead within 15 years. I had a 25% chance of surviving my car accident and 26.7% chance of surviving the hemorrhagic stroke 2 yrs after, but still…. how would I care about any of this garbage? I think that the entire thing is needless and ridiculous. I just wanna be able to watch my show & look up things about it in peace…the same way that I let other ppl watch their shows in peace.
You’re dancing around with semantics. While Tolkien did adjust certain elements, especially peripheral ones like the Blue Wizards, his established lore includes immovable milestones-the core events, characters, and themes he returned to time and again. Citing the Blue Wizards as an example of Tolkien’s evolving ideas misrepresents the nature of his revisions and sidesteps the fundamental importance of these milestones. It’s a straw man argument that diverts attention from the real issue: the liberties taken with Tolkien’s core themes, characters, and historical events in The Rings of Power, which ultimately misrepresents the intended mythos he spent decades developing. Tolkien was pretty clear on Galadriel’s romantic history and Annatar’s role in the ring making. Your statement continues to be over favorable to a mishandling of established lore.
“Established lore” = that which I have authority to define as lore and no one else. Not even, it seems, the Tolkien estate itself as it is involved in the production of RoP.
@@Heat3YT2 I’m not sure what you’re saying. I just want to be clear, myself. ‘Established” in “Established lore” is a past tense word. I’m suggesting there is a point when new adjustments to the lore and timeline are complete. That milestone can be argued when the books authored by Tolkien were published-or after Tolkien’s passing. I think strong arguments could be made for either. I think his passing is more definitive.
@@NicoleStevensHays11x You forgot to write ya'll. I can't wait for the next Black Panther movie starring an all-white cast of blue-eyed Aryans. Can you? Race-baiting ta rd.
At the end of the day, the Tolkien Estate approved everything Rings of Power did. The Tolkien Estate have the rights to all Tolkien works. It's the Tolkien Estate who decide what's canon or not. So, Rings of Power is perfectly acceptable in the Tolkien multiverse and spirit, according to them. The end.
I do not think that is true. The Tolkien estate don’t have approval rights - that legal entity just holds the rights to things not covered in the other rights package that the Jackson films and ROP are based upon. At least that is how I understand the motion picture rights situation. There was a package of rights that Tolkien sold off long ago that is the basis for all of the movies and shows - and that rights package is what Amazon is using , and the estate company has no legal authority over it.
Let’s be honest, Tolkien would probably reacted surprised if someone said to him “Look here’s a Tolkien expert writing on you!” and he’d probably say something like: “An Tolkien expert? Sounds awfully like someone needs a good smoke to clear the mind. There is nothing to be expert on as of currently save getting this pipe lit.” Or something like that.
Yea? Be honest. How do you know? Are you the authority that establishes canon and knows the mind of Tolkien better than everyone? You dismiss Corey for being an “expert” (he doesn’t call himself that) but when you make your own assumptions on Tolkien mind in the next sentence is pretty… dishonest.
@@ZephyrOptional dude I don’t know I’m just amusing myself with the thought 😂😂 it’s all very silly and all this stuff about being “an expert” is rather childish. They’re simply good stories a man wrote for his amusement and that of his children, nothing more and nothing less.
@@oenchanteddoveart6294 it’s fair that you think studying Tolkien lore is silly but 99% of Tolkien book fans would strongly disagree that he wrote nothing more or less than children’s stories for his own amusement. Do you also think Shakespeare was just some playwright trying to make a living and those who study his writings are childish? It’s ok to be a mild Tolkien fan but might not want to challenge those who take it more serious and study Tolkien academically.
@@ZephyrOptional he literally said that’s why he wrote it. And you misquoted me, the silliness lies in the obsession. Obsession leads to degradation and thence hate. There’s nothing wrong with studying his works. I consider myself student to him. What’s silly is the constant bamboozling madness to try and destroy a person’s social status. Art builds upon man’s humanity and his ability to think and discover greater truths beyond himself. You are right that studying These works academically are important. Such works build the very excellence of man’s potential to exist in a culture where one might feed off them and create works greater than those previously. So yes studying these things are good, but tearing one another down is terrible and a wretched thing to do around any great artist’s work.
@@oenchanteddoveart6294 first off, I did not quote you. Second, I’m glad you agree Tolkien is worth study. Therefore, ‘canon’ is an inappropriate word to use to study the Legendarium because per its definition, it requires an authoritative source that contradicts what Tolkien was doing with his Legendarium. Per Tolkien there is no 1 authority as written. The stories are scribed and translated and passed down and filled with intentional errors and discrepancies within the stories themselves. Do you know who Pengolodh and Aelfwine are? If you do, you’ll understand why Tolkien doesn’t have ‘canon’, it’s a legendarium, which means it has a life that ‘canon heads’ just don’t comprehend.
I think the story's canonical PARTS are well-established and with repeatable motifs. I disagree that there is no canon in Tolkien's work. There is canon to some parts and they should be respected and studied when talking about so-called "non-canon" parts.
lol at “respected.” If u find a TV show disrespectful, you can turn it off. Instead, we have an infestation of far right creepers and self-anointed “Tolkien police” who have had nothing better to do for the past 3 years … and now, in the off-season, are STILL infesting spaces where fans belong. Normal ppl don’t terrorize shows they don’t like. Normal ppl don’t even have the time of day
This is fascinating. Jackson’s films, though beloved are not word for word accurate to Tolkien’s writings. Some characters are left out completely, some are original and often character’s famous lines are given to other characters for the benefit of making the movie work better. Are Jackson’s six middle earth films ‘canon?’ Lovecraft doesn’t seem to have so much controversy regarding canon as he welcomed other writers contributing to the Cthulhu mythos. Star Wars fans have the first six Lucas movies as canon and everything after as ‘Disney Canon’?
I don't know a lot about that particular topic, but I think the notion of canon in Star Wars is what's helping to warp the argument here. It's important to understand that Star Wars was primarily developed for a visual medium, and its creator (to the extent that it was created by an individual) is still alive and as such able to provide authoritative decisions or opinion on additions to canon. Conversely the Middle Earth legendarium was a (primarily) a collection of literary works by a now-deceased author. This makes any visual addition to canon impossible, even if you do somehow define what canon is. If I define canon as "anything that Tolkien wrote", that is as acceptable as anything I guess (although still problematic because there are a number of conflicting writings). That means that the few works published during Tolkien's lifetime, and that Dr. Olsen mentioned, are canon. Importantly works like the Silmarillion are not canon themselves, but are very accurately *based* on writings that are canonical. Under this definition, no movie (or TV) adaptation can be considered canon because they all INVENT things (otherwise they'd be just a video of the words on the page). The closest things to canon in the LoTR films are quotes that are word for word what Tolkien wrote. You could say the words themselves are canon, but only because they were defined as such IN THE BOOK. The quote itself definitely can't be considered canon though, because the quote invents a number of things additional to what Tolkien wrote, including accent, cadence, tone, volume and even facial expressions that can't easily be separated from the words themselves. A better question is "how canonically accurate are Jackson's middle earth films?" Of course that doesn't mean that the films, or any other adaptations, aren't valuable additions to the story. As much as I think "sexy Shelob" from the Shadow of War video game is ludicrous, I did enjoy the game, in the same way I'd enjoy a good parody of a film or book, and it's always interesting to see how others interpret that thing that you like. So, how canonically accurate are Jackson's middle earth films? Not very, but I'd say mostly out of necessity. I think I could rattle off 100 significant omissions or changes though, at least.
Star Wars has had extensive "canon Wars" for at least 2 decades. Long before Disney there were rifts between movie canon purists and the readers/consumers of the Expanded Universe novels, comics and video games. Now there's at least 3 rifts, because I'm sure the movies only types are still around, the Expanded Universe fans that refuse to accept anything published/produced post 2012 are around, and then there's the fans of "Disney canon" as well. I wouldn't call it a rift with the people that just enjoy what they enjoy from every era of Star Wars production, since they/we tend to stay out of those battles. I have no problems reading and enjoying books and comics and playing video games from the current "Disney era" or the "Expanded Universe era" simultaneously. Similarly, I can enjoy Rings of Power as it's own thing in adaptation of the Second Age of Middle-Earth while recognizing the differences from what we know of Tolkien's writings on the subject and how much he worked on and altered it over time. I had finished listening to the Simarillion audiobook a couple weeks before ROP season 2 finished and then listened to the audio of the Fall of Numenor in the final week. I personally found it all really fascinating, and interesting to see where elements in ROP find their genesis in those constantly shifting writings.
The "canon" talk is really a red herring about what's acceptable and what isn't in the show, what is accurate, or what would even just be recommended (as given in Tolkien's own text). And you use one definition but think you can also talk about the other definition this way and sweep it aside. But the topic remains.
They would refer to movies or other hate perpetuated by youtubers because it sells or tolkien gateway which is a summary of things not actual books laid out.
love you to pieces Corey, but i'm afraid you are going to have to take the L on this one. (this is not the first time this topic has come up.) you are trying to argue a very esoteric definition of cannon and transpose that into a colloquial dialogue. we all colloquially understand the 'cannon' being he published work and understand that the author had evolving ideas on his work. (that's not uncommon.) by saying "no" cannon is giving license to just make up whatever you want. Your fans all know you don't believe that, but that's what your words are communicating. (and that's not what those who abuse Tolkiens work and remake it in their own image are hearing. Like Morgoth corrupting creation, you cannot say the music never existed in the first place.)
The only one more legit than this guy is Woopie Goldberg. When she stated that people who dislike ROP have not read the books of J. K. Tolkien, she really won me over. I had to look into myself and admit, that I actually have never read the books of J. K. Tolkien.
This is incorrect. I dislike ROP and I have read a lot of Tolkien's books. But imo it's not necessary to read the books to realise that the show is bad. Independent of it being a bad adaptation it's a bad show in its own right.
Good sarcasm, but with how demented some people are these days at first I was not sure if it is in fact sarcasm, lol. What a time to be alive, ideocracy, truly.
Well said, Professor! You are absolutely spot on, and I'm so glad you addressed this topic. It just drives me crazy that people refuse to see the whole picture and make pronouncements about the legitimacy of an adaptation based on some arbitrary personal definition (or understanding of others' use of the word). Or even worse, just accept what someone else has said without bothering to look into it themselves with an open mind. This is why Rings & Realms and the work you and Dr. Parke do is so important. It makes me sad that others refuse to listen and throw out the "paid shill" argument, which is lazy at best and defamation at worst.
I think not many people out there would argue that "canon" is only for published material. As far as I am concerned, all of Tolkien's writings are canon, so there IS a canon. That's was Tolkien wrote, whether it contradicts itself or not. But there is a BIG difference between saying "all that Tolkien wrote is canon" and "there is no such thing as canon" regarding Tolkien's work, which is what you said. Especially because you used it while justifying choices in RoP that have nothing to do with what Tolkien wrote, whether published or unpublished. When Rings of Power changes stuff that is not in ANY of Tolkien's writings, it goes indeed against canon. RoP's silly idea of having Gandalf fly into Middle-earth as a meteor in the Second Age cannot be excused by pointing at Tolkien writing that Olorin was in Middle-earth before the Third Age, because Olorin was there as a Maia, not as an Istar. The Istar Gandalf arrived in the Third Age, and nothing in any of Tolkien's writings, published or otherwise, says something else. Imo, the relevant definitions of "canon" in this discussion are: - Oxford Dictionary: a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the real work of a particular writer or as being important - Merriam-Webster: the authentic works of a writer - Britannica: the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written - Cambridge: all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person - Collins: A canon of texts is a list of them that is accepted as genuine or important.
If you dislike Rings of Power, why are u still talking about it? It’s been 3 years dude. Why does it even bother you? U should not even be watching it! I don’t understand how u ppl can be this fragile, getting upset this easily… I grew up in an alcoholic madhouse where cops were over constantly, multiple times per week, and wouldn’t change a thing. The hell w/ being coddled to death and the resulting fragile “adults”
Also, u ppl really take to take some Xanax…even if it means holding u down and shoving some of that rectal Ativan into u. We fans shouldn’t have to dredge thru a swamp of far-right sewage just to look up something about our show. The way u guys carry on about a tv show is unbelievable and so unhealthy. Idk how u ppl even function in life. If this is ur reaction to a TV SHOW, how do u ppl handle REAL problems?!
@@NicoleStevensHays11x I'm talking about the canon of Tolkien's work. I'm referencing RoP only to point out what isn't canon. For thst argument it's irrelevant whether I like or dislikes ROP, the point is that many of its story elements are not canon, because they disagree with Tolkien's work. It's weird that you accuse me of begin fragile though, when apparently you have a hard time dealing with other people having different opinions and expressing them. What's it to you whether I like or dislike RoP, and whether I discuss it or not? You, too, can just scroll by my comment. If you don't like what I have to say, no need to engage, right? Why does it bother you? You should not even be reading it.
@@NicoleStevensHays11xIf someone dislikes something there's no legitimate reason as to why they shouldn't voice their opinions on why they dislike it. Would the world be a better place if people don''t speak up about the issues they have with things, whether about very serious subjects or ones less so, as not to appear as 'fragile' to others? I don't think so.
@@suzannelucero86 can you put into words the extent to which you think the show bothers me based on a single sentence disparaging it? Or do you somehow feel such a personal connection to the product of a multi billion dollar company that you feel the need to lash out at those who dislike it? If anyone's ulcers are at risk here, they aren't mine sweetheart.
Thank you for this video. It's refreshing to see someone making the point that when it comes to Tolkien, there isn't any definitive canon. The author was revisiting and rewriting his stories throughout his life, including details about characters in LOTR. The character of Galadriel is a case in point: her story morphed and changed over more than 5 decades and (as his son Christopher points out in Unfinished Tales) the author was rewriting her story once again in the final month of his life. When you look at some of the author's later writings about Galadriel, you find that she is often described in the First Age as proud and wilful. That seems more in line with the character as portrayed in The Rings of Power than LOTR.
Of course there is canon. The Hobbit and LOTR (latest editions) are absolutely canon. Minor contradictions exist in every literal work by any writer. Everything published after his death is debatable. But saying that canon does not exist at all is absurd.
Its certainly not about the thing that goes boom! (speling) However its perfectly fine for you to not like it. Cory is not defending the quality of the show here. He's try to explain why canon is a problematic way of looking at Tolkien's work, and thereby defending his previous remarks about it.
Corey, thank you very much for making this video. There are lots of us Tolkien fans that love the lore as well as all the adaptations. We’re really tired of all the “canon” purists telling us that we’re not “real” Tolkien fans because we don’t view all of his writing the same way they do. I sincerely believe that the canon is whatever the individual thinks it is.
How can canon be "whatever an individual thinks it is"? People have many different ideas that they want Tolkien to have meant but that doesn't change what Tolkien actually wrote. Canon is and will always be what Tolkien actually wrote (there is some nuance in his posthumously published work - but precedence goes to what he actually published and what his most recent revisions were as well as what he wrote about characters and events in his letters). I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept - if you are a fan of Tolkien, you are a fan of what Tolkien actually wrote not the changes that some adaptation or interpretation introduces.
Tolkien wrote: "Sauron have never laid hands or touched the three rings" and he NEVER wrote anther he did. the rings of power have Sauron eyeing nenya. and, for you, that's okay. so, grow a pair, and make a video saying that"it's okay to CHANGE what THE author wrote" NOT "filling the blanks " but changing the original material.
or to use your blue wizard ANALogy - so we can say the blue wizards came to middle earth in the first age and created the hobbits with the spark of the flame imperishable they stole earlier while eru slept? really?
Technically, he never did touch Nenya. He saw it, obviously knew of its existence both in show and in the book, but he doesn’t get to lay a finger on it. Based on the idea of his touch, Nenya is still unsullied by him.
@@davidbeer5015 he never knew or saw the three, they were made last and hidden from him. he only took knowledge of them when he put the one in his finger. but, with enough money, there is no cannon, so, apparently the three could have been prince Albert's piercings for Sauron at some point. maybe in season three
The one missing a pair is you. Splitting hairs over a TV show you shoulda turned off years ago… God have mercy on u ppl when u move out of ur parents’ basement and face real life problems
This is a straw man. It matters not one jot that Tolkien himself changed his mind while writing, but it matters an awful lot if - as in The Rings of Power - total inconsistency with everything he did causes a stew of indigestible chunks of story that completely conflict with the lore. The most reprehensible example is in the R.o.P. portrayal of Galadriel, who - if the writers had even glanced at the Silmarillion - is barely of the human world, but somewhere between the realm of angels and human. She does not wield a sword, because her immense power is of a different order and she moves in other dimensions that few can grasp. That is what we might call 'feminine' in the spiritual sense. Tolkien is totally consistent in portraying her this way, and she does not wield the ordinary weapons that mortals do. Likewise, Sauron was once a lofty Being, like an Archangel - actually similar to William Blake's painting 'Satan In His Original Glory', but fell into a profound darkness in following Morgoth. To show him as just a 'man' and Galadriel merely as a feisty feminist showing off to show her equality or superiority to the male characters is a complete travesty. It's plain to me that Tolkien would have hated the way this abuse of his writing has twisted upside down the whole meaning of his narratives, which do actually, cohere. The R.o.P. does not cohere with anything he wrote, even fundamentally.
Tolstoy revisited entire War and Peace, and basically every author ever. So what? Of course there is canon. The Hobbit and LOTR (latest editions) are absolutely canon. Minor contradictions exist in every literal work by any writer. Everything published after his death is debatable. But saying that canon does not exist at all is absurd.
I put more stock in what Tolkien said than your straw-maning and shilling. Tolkein said on a 1958 failed adaption of LOTR "The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies..... and I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery. |
I mean…apparently in that script, Faramir’s body just started floating and Radagast was an Eagle, among other wild things. Yeah. That’s quite the departure and could be seen as a perversion.
"Well that's very wise Professor Tolkien. But actually when you say the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different, I agree with you. But can't they be very different? Or slightly different? Or rather different? What we'd like to know is how different is it possible for them to be? Again, the problem is not perceiving where the core of the original lies. Okay, where's the core of the original? Tell us that and then we'll get a bit further forward." -Professor Tom Shippey And would you also apply that quote to the Jackson films, which changed the characters far more than they changed plot and scenery?
@@jj48 He wasn't actually speaking to Tolkien. What he said in the lecture was ... "Then he went on and he said, "The problem is, not perceiving where the core of the original lies." And I thought, "Well that's very wise Professor Tolkien...." And yes, I do apply it to the Peter Jackson films as well, but I am not going to waste both our time writing an essay arguing the large difference of degree in these cases. I think the original Jackson trilogy keeps to the core while ROP does not. Shippey does have a much better take in his lecture than this slop. The lecture you are quoting from is "Tolkien Book to Jackson Script: the Medium and the Message". It is not a perfect adaptation either, but good enough to be enjoyable. I am not a complete purist either, but the problem is 'precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies". You do not have to agree, that is fine, and I hope people do like the show even if I do not. It would be a huge waste of money if no one liked it, and I do not want that. I do not even want the show to fail, this adaptation doesn't harm the original work at all. I'm not trying to get anyone to dislike the show, but I am sick of being told that I have to give the show a pass on its jibberish because there is not really any such things as Tolkien canon. There is canon. Frodo destroyed the one ring, I'd say that is canon. Also, both Shippey and Tolkien say there is canon too. It is a ridiculous argument, made particularly grating in this instance because this argument about canon is self-serving crap from a man paid to advertise and justify the show. Regardless, I have spent too much time on this already, and it is not helping anyone. Keep smiling stranger! Have a great day.
@@RamblingZhen What makes you think Corey's being paid to advertise and justify the show? Listen to his "Riddles in the Dark" podcast that he did leading up to the Hobbit films, and you'll see that this is just his approach to thinking about adaptation.
@@gutcassidyandthesundancech5925 From what I hear, they've got something like 26 hours of footage to go through, and there were other scheduling conflicts delaying things. And why would rewatching it be a bad thing? Those of us interested in actually discussing the episode are probably watching it multiple times anyway, and those just watching the analyses probably weren't planning on watching the show to begin with.
Then don’t use it. If anyone agreed with you, it wouldn’t be the empire it is. But far far right weirdos are perpetually unable to cope w/ being society’s outcasts and their opinions being beyond unpopular!
Arguments over Tolkien's "canon" reflect debates over religious canons in general. Example from Christianity: what is canon and declared part of a New Testament was fought over for *centuries* and is _still_ fought over. People fighting over Tolkien adaptations are very much like Christians arguing over which ancient text to believe and how to believe it.
The main difference being that determining what words come from God and what words come from Man to guide doctrinal interpretations seems a bit more important than determining which version of a fictional story an author was happiest with. With religious texts, the question of "canon" can be pretty important. With fantasy, it's an interesting discussion, at best.
@@jj48 "... determining what words come from God and what words come from Man ... seems a bit more important than determining which version of a fictional story an author was happiest with. ..."
@@TheDanEdwards I'm aware that some people will view it as such. However, I would hope that even they could put enough thought into it to see that, if any writing were from God, it would be pretty important to distinguish them.
The Canon of the NT is only argued today as a subtopic within the debate about Sola Scriptura, with only a few exceptions from obvious heretics (the Mormons, for example). The 27 books have been established for over a thousand years and are not up for debate anymore.
"... because it's writers just love those other writings of Tolkien that some people want to exclude as non-canonical." Yea okay so which of those "other Tolkien writings" had Elrond making out with his mother-in-law, who incidentally Sauron also happens to a crush on?
Calling it a makeout with his mother-in-law-to be-is a bit exaggerated. But if you want to get technical, The Reason of Isengard has a bit in the Lothlorien chapter where Galadriel is “the wife of Elrond.” I don’t think that that is where it comes from, though. I think it’s an invention for the moment in the story much like Frodo being taken to Osgiliath, Treebeard needing to be told to go south and see the deforestation to be hasty and attack, or even the beacons being lit by Pippin. As for Sauron’s interest in her, that could be taken as a read of “he desires to know my mind.”
@@davidbeer5015 cringe whataboutism by Amazon-apologists and Bezos-bots : "but whatabout Peter Jackson something something". PJ's changes were mostly necessary and quite minor, ROP is absolute fanfiction. Not to mention LOTR is masterpiece cinematography vastly superior to ROP at every possible level.
@bdleo300 I didn’t bring up Jackson’s films to say “but what about…!” Someone asked about where in Tolkien’s works something was, I gave a point that *could* potentially lend credence, but I also said that I don’t think that was the case, so then, in my view, it fit the same category as some alterations that Jackson made that aren’t in the book. Things that weren’t there or done that way but added for some other reason. Something that adaptations do quite frequently. Notably, some of the changes I referenced were also not “necessary.” People love to say Jackson’s changes were necessary and quite minor , despite the fact that such changes involve altering whole characters. Aragorn is very different, wasn’t necessary. Faramir is very different and Frodo never went to Osgiliath, those were not necessary for the change to film. And honestly, same with Treebeard. But you did come in here essentially accusing me of being an “Amazon apologist and Bezos-bot”, so I’m sure you’ll ignore my actual point. (Bezos is barely involved with the writing and what. And it bothers me peope would rather call it “Amazon’s” and LotR “Jackson’s.” Why not call LotR “New Line Cinema’s” or RoP “McKay & Payne’s”?)
@@geir8849 true, but they've had three weeks now and could have released more. That video makes it sound like we're going to be drip fed the connect over the next couple of months which is not great. I can see why he's possibly thinking of doing it (keep activity and interest in the channel), but I doubt I'll watch reactions a month from now.
@@TomOnTheTube Both Maggie and Corey have said they're not doing reactions to the episodes. They're doing analysis. It's not about getting it out as fast as possible to garner attention. They're being deliberate and careful with analysis.
Thank you for this, Corey. I'm glad you expanded on the topic. I know that you've spoken on this all in prior video discussions, but it's helpful to have it concisely addressed.
I find this whole conversation around canon to be a waste of time. It's a distraction from the real issue. Canon or no canon, Amazon has zero respect for Tolkien's work, his legacy, or his fans. Are we really pretending that having a firm and inflexible canon would stop Amazon (or Netflix) from butchering Tolkien? Has it stopped them from butchering anything else they get their grubby hands on? Tolkien changing his ideas isn't permission for a writer to change them even further. It's not your sandbox to play in.
I agree that the argument around canon has gotten out of hand. I disagree that they have been butchering things though. In my opinion, while specific plot points have changed, the story itself has been both enjoyable and keeping true to various themes established in Tolkien’s works. Morality/ends and means, light and darkness, how it is not might that wins the day, etc. let alone the situation of faith and politics with Numenor. But that’s just me. I’d personally rather those things stay true instead of a rigid holding to plot point.
The Tolkien Estate approves every single Rings of Power aspect. So, you have to go to them and say "listen, I know you are the greatest Tolkien experts in the entire world, but you are wrong and I'm right!" Good luck.
I don't understand why people are soooo stuck on the issue of rings of power adhering to the books. Of course, that is critical, but first, I think we have to look at the work individually. If you put the books aside, the whole narrative and story of both seasons don't work, it's just a patchwork, as a standalone series or movie, it's not cohesive. The trilogy didn't follow the books exactly, but the whole thing comes together and makes sense. I think that's more important to consider, just to zoom out of the details of the book and look at the work holistically, then getting to the details and comparison with books.
I’m confused. So are we all happy that ROP went against the most complete and widely beloved version of Gandalfs origin? Sure you can question the word Canon. But that doesn’t change the most well known and most cohesive lore that fits with the LOTR being ignored. It’s still a terrible idea. It will create endless continuity issues with the rest of his time in middle earth.
„That Olórin [Gandalf], as was possible for one of the Maiar, had already visited Middle-earth and had become acquainted not only with the Sindarin Elves and others deeper in Middle-earth, but also with Men, is likely, but nothing is (has yet been) said of this.“ (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Peoples of Middle-earth - Part 2, Chapter XIII, "Last Writings, p.381")
For the reasons he discussed. It's all opinion. I have loved the Lord of the rings and Tolkien's work since I was in middle school. They inspired me to write. And I have loved the rings of power so far. None of it ruins the Lord of the rings for me. To me, people who complain about the show are shallow minded. Or bigots.
They didn’t “ruin” Lord of the Rings, or anything Tolkien. Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s works still exist the way they always have. Don’t be a baby.
@@Tar-Elenion He chose the christian definition of the canonicity of the holy work. Where it was not written by one person so a Council was called in Nicaea(First Council of Nicaea) where the most respected christian theologists of that time came together and tried to achieve consensus over the many stories out there at the time, which is the complete opposite of what Tolkien went through. He then goes into other definitions but conveniently neglects the one definition that blows his argument apart. Thats why I know he's lying and being disingenuous, this video removed any benefit of the doubt I had left for him.
@@attilatoth8581 So now, anyone who likes something you don't is a "Tolkien hater"? 😂 Maybe I should start calling anyone who likes The Crystal Star a "Star Wars hater"! 🤣
@@jj48 You do that. I'm gonna keep calling everyone a Tolkien hater who defends and celebrates the deliberate destruction and subversion of his work. As well as the people who blatantly lie about it going as far as to claim that Tolkien never wrote things he did write and that there is no canon anyway.
@@attilatoth8581 No one's celebrating "the deliberate destruction and subversion of his work," though, as that's not even happening. And who's claiming Tolkien never wrote things he did write?
People confuse their own inability to understand something with a fault in the thing itself. It has to be bad, because I don't get it. And I also don't want to understand it, because that would take effort or - God forbid - an education.
Excellent, Corey. I agree with all of this, except that I would not call Tolkien's use of canon in "canons of narrative art" a tertiary sense. It is, in fact, a lot close to the original meaning, "rule" or "measuring stick," and I wouldn't be surprised if he had that sense precisely in mind when he used that phrase.
Thanks for this. I personally blame Star Wars. People became used to the concept of "canon" as it was presented by the Star Wars Expanded Universe, with different layers of authority, and when they came to Tolkien they tried to apply the same system to him. Naturally enough it didn't work because it can't work, but it didn't stop them trying and it doesn't stop them persisting.
@@freja9398a hobo uses a sword key to turn on a volcano. Later, orcs shoot trebuchets at a mountainside to insta-dam a river. It. Is. Incredibly. Stupid.
Hear, hear! This necessary foray into Tolkien canon is 25 years overdue. This topic should have been seriously discussed when PJ was working on the the LOTR movie trilogy. Many now view those films as "canon" even though they were severely criticized by Tolkien literary purists when initially aired. RoP is now facing the same issues. Thank you, Corey, for keeping us on track with the CORRECT definition of canon in Tolkien LITERATURE. Adaptations are just that--ADAPTATIONS. If fans are hung up on only hearing Tolkien's own words, READ THE BOOKS! 😄
I just had this exact conversation during a car ride with my partner yesterday and was really lovely explaining it to her. Thank you so much for doing it here and making the point of discourse about being thoughtful and critical not just reactionary.
All true. Of course, none of this changes the fact that Rings of Power is a terribly written show that should be embarrassed to call itself "the Lord of the Rings".
I have to ask, in what "other writings of Tolkien" was Galadriel a 5 foot 2 warrior queen who fancied getting into Saurons pants? ... Rule 34 Middle Earth?
@@yamamotolucius9328 I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news…but there are almost no women who are 6’4” on earth, and possibly no 6’4” trained actresses. If you’re 6’4” and female…you’re on a D1 volleyball or basketball team, not in theater. Sauron is supposed to be 8’-9’ tall whereas Charlie Vickers is only 5’11”and you don’t seem upset about that 🤷♀️
I appreciate Dr. Olsen's discussion of "canon", even though I"m not sure it is necessary. Yes, comments were made on the internet, but comments will always be made. I know many that listen to your videos truly enjoy the Rings of Power series. I am not one of those (even though I keep on going), but I listen to Dr. Olsen because I respect his viewpoints. Afterall, he got me through the Silmarillion with his on-line course; two reads to fully understand, and a third read to fully enjoy it (fantastic book). My issue with the series (which is in-line with most of the on-line critics) is it is simply poorly written. Whether it is fully consistent with cannon or lore is secondary, especially when the source material is not a complete narrative to feed off of like the published books. The Show Runners had too many holes to fill and they did not do it well. I was excited when I first heard of the series, but it did not live up to my expectations. Now, I wish it would all have been left alone. We have the movies and published materials. I think there was a reason Christopher Tolkien was trying to end it with his death. We should respect that.
Dr. Olsen, can we use the word "canon" as a definition of everything that Tolkien wrote including different versions of the same stories and "non-canon" as something that had never appeared in his works?
To what end? What would be the point of such "canon"?
@@jj48to maintain the integrity of the original story/characters when trying to adapt it to some other medium... It's pretty simple
@@DamTheAbsolute And what do you mean by "maintain the integrity"? Can't a character still feel like the same character even if they do some different actions? Or can't they feel like they changed too much even if their actions remain pretty close to the original? If so, then in what sense did labeling the former "non-canon" and the latter "canon" help maintain character integrity?
_>"can we use the word "canon" as a definition of everything that Tolkien wrote"
@@jj48 Man, leave it be! It really isn't that hard to understand the worth of canon. For one thing people adapting it are presented (in Tolkien's case) with a great outline that supports them immensly in creating an appealing product. It's also a guardrail which shows the consumers of such products (us) wheather the adaption is faithful or if the "adaptors" have made it a different thing all together that only ressembles the original lore in name but nothing more (Rings of Power imo). Which adapting choices are faithful and which are not depends on the personal opinion of course. This gives room for discussions which happen all over RUclips. Still, canon is a great base on which discussion of a show's quality can be held.
Corey spent a lot of time talking about publishers, and i agree, but I think it's important to strongly note how WEIRD Tolkien's publishing situation was compared to modern writers. I mean this; Tolkien's unpublished (during his lifetime) and "incomplete" works are so extensive, i cant think of another writer who wrote so much about a world that was never published AND then later published after his or her death. He's pretty unique in that regard? If anyone has a writer similar, let me know, because it's fascinating
I'm sure there are a huge amount of authors that have unpublished works in their worlds. They just don't have the Tolkien level of interest in uncovering those writings. Or they're still around writing it. GRRM has easily written close to if not more on his world. Same with Robert Jordan. Steven Erikson has long eclipsed the content that Tolkien published or didn't have published combined. This scenario is different now than it was with Tolkien - to an incomparable extent.
@@edrik3521ah no, i am talking about authors who have had a huge amount of their writings published after their death. Every writer (fantasy in particular) likely has huge amounts of unpublished works that fans have not seen, but who are those writers who have had all that work published after their passing? I can't think of many...if you know of any
You can say the same for so many authors, GRRM explaining his books every few days in random tv interviews so? What was published is canon, unless it's changed (Tolstoy revisited and rewrote large parts of War and Peace for example). What Tolkien said in some letter to someone somewhere is not canon. No need to be Profe$$or Amazon to know this. The Hobbit and LOTR (latest published versions) are absolutely canon. Saying otherwise is absurd. Everything else, including the Silmarillion is debatable.
@@bdleo300 Well letters were written by Tolkien himself and in most of them he explains some misconceptions, so they are in fact canon, even tough in published versions they are shorten. What you cannot consider canon is material published or writen based on notes author left, while warping those notes to creative a narration for completly original ideas and stories that original author didn't even wrote. Even Tolkien's son admitted that some of his fater notes had to be rewriten and modified to fit already existing materials in The Hobbit and LOTR, becasue those notes were written far before he even started writing LOTR and that's why he discarded them.
Dune, by Frank Herbert . . . the later books were written by his son and a collaborator based off extensive background notes (reportedly) discovered after Frank Herbert's unexpected death. The legitimacy of Brian Herbert's later extrapolation of these original notes is hotly contended . . . opinion, within the community, is very divided but civil. Remains to be seen if that civility will survive when the Dune Movie spin off TV shows get aired - a) because they are based on Brian Herbert's version of Dune mythology and many of the people who rejected his books simply never read them, so never bothered to argue about any of it (they are happy so long as Dune itself remains untouched in it's core themes), and b) how faithfully HBO adapt those works from the books, because a poor adaptation will (ironically) unite the community in rejecting the adaptation (as it would offend both the Frank Herbert purists and the, for want of a better word, Brian Herbert heretics)
Everyone is insufferable these days.
Indeed, especially this self-proclaimed "Tolkien Professor" who deigns to tell us unenlightened beings what subjective opinions we can have (while everything he spews is absolute, objective truth, of course) and even what we should or shouldn't be ashamed of! Thank you so much for the consideration, Mr. Olsen, and thank you for being such a smarmy, condescending and wholly insufferable prick! I hope you enjoy losing dozens of fans and longtime followers for the sake of a mediocre Amazon show. 🙂
In J.R.R. Tolkien's last will and testament, Christopher was appointed literary executor and granted "full power to publish, edit, alter, rewrite, or complete any work of [his father's] which may be unpublished at [his] death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works". that makes what he published also as much canon as if JRR Tolkien himself published it. no current living person may do so since Christopher Tolkien did not grant those rights further. So the argument would be still everything published ( since the Tolkien estate actually has enough money to publish whatever they want anyway ).
If we're going with, "Canon is everything published," though, then we have to seriously ask ourselves what the point of looking at canon is. No one's claiming that any movies or shows were made by Tolkien himself, so simply having a list isn't helping much in that regard. If we instead mean that we want all the details within a project to match what's in the canon, then it seems pretty silly to include in our definition works that contradict each other.
@@jj48 Yeah, people say "canon" when they are thinking something like "continuity with LotR" (and sometimes that means the PJ movies!), but taking "everything" to be "the canon".... it's not even in continuity with itself (cough unstain'd Galadriel and Celeborn the Teler cough)
@@DavidRoberts Though, it'll always be part of my headcanon that Gandalf wanted to set Legolas on fire to melt the snow on Caradhras, and that Hobbits who live in multi-story houses throw their dishes out of the upper windows to avoid having to walk down stairs with them.
Source?
Christopher published 'The History Of Middle Earth', I guess much of that counts as the Tolkien multiverse lol
I wholeheartedly agree with the inaccuracy of the use of the word "canon", when discussing Tolkien legendarium. What I do not agree with is the concept of adaptations getting a pass at ignoring all of the writings of Tolkien in order to insert their own subcreations and pass them off as inspired by him.
The criticism against Rings of Power on account to its inaccuracy to the lore is valid regardless of the existence of a canon.
I hold it to the same standard as any adaptation of the Trojan War. There is no "canonical" version of the legend, but mutiple ones. Yet when it comes to adaptations there are good ones, who are capable to toy with the conflicting accounts while doing a good job at transmitting the ethos and pathos of a whole people who authored them, and there are Hollywood travesties like Troy, who strip the legend of any of its spirit to give us an empty, mindless action movie with no respect for its source material. When I object to Rings of Power I'm not invoking authority, I'm invoking the common rules of storytelling and the very definitions of adaptation and dramatization.
Yes, there is a tendency to use the word canon improperly in this debate. But the misuse of one word, does not invalidate the debate itself.
Very well said. Very often people who defend the show misuse the concept of canon as a shield, when the argument is not about canon at all, but about the quality of the end product.
Of course, canon is part of that discussion, because if you take something that is good, and make changes that downgrade it, then people will question why you made these changes. People tend to not question Jackson's films moving away from canon where they did, because the quality remained high.
@@evangelospaschopoulos9199 How can you two say this, when Tolkien made it explicitly clear in his letter that he did not appreciate rewrites? Not one but two different letters he was extremely upset that people were rewriting his work. What justification do you have to say his canon doesn't matter?
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri i think you've misunderstood what we're saying.
@@evangelospaschopoulos9199 Where do you think I erred in that post?
While I appreciate what Corey is attempting to do, I fear he has fallen prey to a common mistake people untrained in rhetoric make-the straw man argument. I don’t know any serious critic of ROP who has argued canon=published before death. And no one is arguing Tolkien didn’t write anything at all. Corey kicked the hornets nest when he said there is no such thing as Canon in Tolkien. That is not the real issue. The real issue and question we are struggling with vis-à-vis ROP is whether an adaptation is faithful/truthful/pick your adjective to the author’s vision and story and worldview. Canon is just a lazy attempt to trying to address the question ( if true to Canon, then true to story). I fear we will continue to have these struggles until the show runners are finally able to explain what they had the right to represent in the show, what they didn’t have a right to represent on the show, and what the rules were for going against the story as published at least in the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion.
Crikey, i almost wish i could get as worked up as prople in these comments!! I just love reading tolkien legendarium, and love watching cool fantasy stuff on telly, i'm a simple guy!! I just wonder if you guys and girls who get so defensive of it wouldnt benefit from being a tiny bit more understanding and phlegmatic. I adore everything about the legendarium but even i acknowledge theyre just books and mythology, why in the name if all thats holy do lots of people get genuinely personal to others about it...theyre fantastical everyone, theyre escapism and wonderment..please dont lose your sense and decency in ranting and attacking about them. Remember what a religious man JRR was, and also the fellowship and friendship that runs through his works, surely if you love frodo and sam, or legolas and gimli or beleg, or bilbo and thorin...then you should be able to act with the honour and decency that they and so many other legendar ium character's do
I just wonder what all these people are going to do when all of Tolkien's writings are out of copyright, and really get abused... I personally think that RoP is closer to the being true to lore than a lot of Jackson's stuff, but even if I'm wrong there, I can guarantee it is way closer than most all of the stuff that will come out based on it after copyright is expired...
I think some people do also tend to forget how much of tolkien goes onto film even if it's juxtaposed in other places, Jackson and his writers and producers and cast all love the books (or at least learnt to during it) and I genuinely think there is respect and engagement from these writers too, I just think they've been told to put all the coolest stuff and characters in to make the most impact full TV, which I understand completely. As for out of copyright....oh boy...that could be challenging, how about Turin Turambar, the Musical: an uplifting tale of positivity, success and requited love!!!
Dont lie to my face then. Why do you people always pretend to be victims when you're in the wrong? Genuine question. Pretending you have decency when you call others names and tell them they should off themselves is just the highest point of hypocrisy
They love it so much. They abandon the very messages of pity and empathy the works champion. Missing the wood for the trees 😂
@JohnSmith-zb7ri who's this aimed at my friend? If it's me then I'm afraid you have mistaken my comment, if it's in support of my statement then I'm afraid it has a hint of the kind of incendiary language I'm worried about, if you could clarify the intended recipient then I would love to chat
I am late to this party. So, I will try to be brief.
A. Olsen makes some good points.
1. The use of the word “canons” in the Zimmerman letter is misunderstood and misapplied by some of Olsen’s opponents.
2. No one actually possess authority to establish “canon” for Tolkien and in fact no list of what is or isn’t canon is actually generally accepted by all readers of Tolkien.
B. Olsen makes some big mistakes:
1. Olsen fails to explain other important definitions of “canon” (which I’ll not go into at the moment) that are perhaps contributing to the atmosphere of confusion.
2. Olsen horribly mischaracterizes and underplays the significance of the songbook “The Road Goes Ever On”. It is by no means just a book of sheet music (which wasn’t even written by JRRT.) Actually, the introductory essay by Tolkien analyzing the Elvish poetry and translating it to English bears greatly upon matters touched on by the Amazon series: the life and character of Galadriel and the Palantiri as well.
3. It is unfair and incorrect to lump together those who criticize Amazon’s series for its lack of canonicity and lore accuracy with those who claim only Tolkien works published during his lifetime should be accepted as canon. In fact very many of those who are making lore or canonicity arguments against the series are objecting precisely to the fact that the series doesn’t draw upon “The Silmarillion” “Unfinished Tales” or the various volumes of “The History of Middle-earth” . People such as myself take the wider view of the Legendarium and that is precisely why we detest that the Stranger has turned out to be Gandalf instead of a Blue Wizard. What Olsen says amounts to a straw man argument and is even somewhat condescending and therefore offensive.
On my channel I love thinking and talking about the incomplete and undetermined nature of Tolkien's Legendarium but I also sharply criticize Amazon's series.
Yeah, I and many others have also pointed out how the argument presented in this video is ultimately just an empty strawman. But don't expect Olsen to ever acknowledge it or retort. He is actually self-important enough to believe he's settled all debate with this nonsense.
Well, it is unfair. But to be honest, accusation of hereticism when it comes to adaptation is an insult to Art, especially from novel to cinema. Some of the most lauded movies ever made are terrible adaptations of great (or mediocre) novels. Adherence to the lore with poor writing would have made this serie a kitsch fanservice-y work, no doubt defended by fans for purity. If anything, I'm glad that it turned out how it is. RoP suffers from being first and foremost, a bad TV-Show.
@@ahimsamovies4484But isn't Olsen replying to days of concentrated vitriol against a sentence in passing ?
@@zdhim2714 Good points. The the single worst thing about the show in my opinion is the cringeworthy dialog in much of it (but by no means all of it.)
I think it is particular value to keep in mind that traditional access to content involves the creator, editor, and publisher. Our “public” access to the creators content will be through those filers
With the greatest of respect, I cannot agree. And I’ll try to explain why. To say there is no canon regarding Tolkien is clearly absurd. There are matters where there is no debate (or granted a significantly large consensus of conviction) to be had; some things Tolkien wrote within his Legendarium where you can say yes, that’s Tolkien canon right there. Examples, yes to hobbits, dragons and wargs, no to lizard men, zombies and hydra. The actions of the Second and Third Ages were set in Eriador and Beleriand, not Narnia or Discworld. The King returning in the Third Age was Aragorn, not Boromir or Castamir. You see? Albeit on a possibly narrow definition of canon, some of the writing is indisputable. The larger question which I happily concede is perfectly valid is where may canon start and end in relation to the author’s unpublished work and changing ideas as he got older and revised his initial thoughts. But no canon at all? No.
This is honestly just common sense. The only reason a "professor" would suggest otherwise would be if he had an agenda. Do you think a proper Tolkien scholar like Tom Shippey would make sensationalist statements like Olsen has been doing to try and discredit legitimate criticism of Rings of Power? Of course not.
Did you listen? You need an authority to establish canon. Who is your authority?
@@ZephyrOptional The original writer who else?
@@JohnSmith-zb7rihis point was Tolkien changed things several times throughout his life. Some of which were published and some were rejected by his publisher. Which of those is more canon than the other?
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri the original writer that was constantly changing his stories. Which version do YOU deem canon? See the issue? As was clearly said by Corey, you need an authority to establish canon. The authority (Tolkien) did NOT do this, so it’s YOU that are taking the authority to establish the canon in your own mind, which is ok, but don’t project your opinion of what you believe is the authoritative version on others by claiming ‘canon’. Tolkien used the word Legendarium ILO canon and think we should do the same. The Legendarium is everything Tolkien wrote, contradictions and all, and is beyond the bonds of a constrained concept like canon. Similar in religion, canon is a very controversial and problematic concept and only used to tell someone else that they’er wrong. I’ve been reading Tolkien for decades and remember when the PJ movies came out. We talked about many lore & Legendarium issues but no one talked about Tolkien ‘canon’ until ROP came around and now there are all these little (often young) internet Tolkien “experts” start throwing the word around to tell others with deeper lore knowledge that they are wrong. So in your personal canon, when did the wizards first arrive in Middle Earth? The Legendarium says there are three to four different correct answers. My favorite is the last one he wrote where they came in full power in the first age and Melian was their chief.
Great discussion. Two things come to mind:
First, it's important to note how Tolkien frames his stories as history and folklore, not just the product of his imagination--even if we know that the legendarium is ultimately the latter. The Lord of the Rings, for example, is the account of Frodo and Sam, while the Valaquenta is "according to the lore of the Eldar." As someone who studies history and (to a lesser extent) folklore, I can tell you: none of our narratives are certain or stable. They are all based on limited perspectives and fallible memories. Tolkien would have known this. Another layer of complication is added with translation, which is necessarily imperfect, and the legendarium is also supposed to be translated. So, if we imagine that everything in the legendarium refers to real events, we have to accept that we only have access to representations of those events, not the unmediated reality as it actually occurred. That seems to me to create an unusually generous opening for retellings of the stories. The Rings of Power even appears to nod to these ideas when the story of the origin of mithril is said to be apocryphal, or when Adar tells Galadriel that her knowledge of what happened to Morgoth's crown is wrong.
Second, this whole discussion is about the authority of the author. One the one hand, it's clear that Tolkien had some sensitivity about adaptation of his work. On the other, in his famous comments on allegory, he's uncomfortable with the idea of the tyranny of the author. Part of what constitutes evil in the legendarium is the erasure of multiplicity: the domination of one authority and one view over all others. Does this also apply to the idea of canon and adaptation?
Well said! Thank you for your nuanced and educated views on all of this. I appreciate all you do for this community!
Any comment beyond this is just trolling. Corey explained this so clearly and succinctly that it baffles me how people have the gall to argue.
Thank you!!! Love yall hope all are well
This is nothing but an empty strawman. The vast majority of the critics of Rings of Power aren't even employing the term "canon" in the ways Olsen is suggesting here (i.e. to imply that only the published works can be considered a legitimate source). And guess what? The showrunners of Rings of Power themselves have used the word "canon" in reference to Tolkien's writings, thereby affirming its existence, and even said that season 2 of their TV show would contain more "canonical material". Even THEY admit that there are things for which there is a basis in Tolkien's writings (published or unpublished), and things which they completely made up themselves. So why do you go to such lengths to gaslight the fanbase into believing otherwise? If you want to talk about lack of integrity, look no further than that.
You're essentially using this strawman argument to imply that "since Tolkien wrote multiple versions of certain events and concepts, ANYTHING GOES when adapting his works!" which is not only utterly absurd but also rather reprehensible as a scholar. Honestly, I actually used to appreciate your work and follow your podcasts, but ever since you've become this smarmy, disingenuous Rings of Power cheerleader, I simply can't bring myself to anymore. I'm not going to assert you're being paid by Amazon since I've no evidence either way, but it frankly doesn't matter, since I've lost all respect for you anyway.
It's rather funny how you complain about staw man arguments, and then go on to misrepresent his argument.
@@jj48 It's rather funny that you simp for ROP 24/7, and yet, despite all that practice, you're still incredibly bad at it.
@@TolkienArda65 Pointing out the flaws in people's areguments is "simping" now? Sorry, I can't keep up with the slang youngsters are using these days.
@@jj48 You can't keep up with many things it seems.
Rather, tell us how much amazon is paying these days?
@@TolkienArda65 I wouldn't know, as I just talk about RoP because I enjoy discussing Tolkien and Tolkien adaptations. If you know of a way to get Amazon to pay me for doing what I'd be doing anyway, I'd love to hear it.
There are some black frames just before he starts explaining
An author revising his own canon to bring it to a greater consistency with his overall vision is really the opposite of him not having a canon at all. Future authors coming in and attaching themselves to the work like parasites so they can smuggle their own ideas- this is not something to be defended, and the fact that you've sold your soul in the attempt to do so elicits nothing but my loathing and disgust. Good evening, sir. I hope never to see you in my feed again.
Stick the flounce.
Also you do realize that because you interacted with this video, the algorithm will show you more of it now, right? 🤣
When it comes to the tv show, most people use canon as a term to mean "written by Tolkien", not implying a rank order within his writings
Can anyone point out to me where Corey states Rings of power is canon? I must have missed it.
At no point he says that. Neither the creators of the show. But when people come to a video with pre-concieved ideas of hate, regardless the content, multiple and colorful readings of the same message can be drawn.
Rings of Power definitely isnt canon, under any definition of the word. The writing alone would offend Tolkien, he was very particular despite being for the idea of others writing stories within his world.
Its directly copied scenes from Jacksons films, and butchered near everything.
It's as Canon as any adaption. You really think Tolkien would feel any differently about The Hobbit films, The LOTR trilogy, The Rankin Bass Tolkien films or The 1978 LOTR, He probably would have had big issues with all of them.
@@JrrrNikolaus yes, hence why none of those are canon
@@JrrrNikolaus So if my adaption had a toyota camry that wouldn't dispute Tolkien's canon at all. Use that brain of yours
Is anyone claiming it IS canon?
@@jj48 They're claiming its not canon and this professor is arguing canon doesnt exist. So if it does not exist if my adaption had a car or tank then would that be A ok? No because that asinine
I deeply respect Professor Olsen as a reader of Tolkien, and I’m glad his critics are getting a schooling here. I appreciate his efforts to think analytically about the adaptational choices made by the RoP creators. It’s a great example of how responsible scholars think and speak.
That said…I found the show painful to watch 😂
I think Professor Olsen would sympathise with you, and many also had similar feelings when the film trilogy was coming out and then the Hobbit films after.
Why don't you just go to his house and ask if you can lick his butt?
I think the actual issue is that certain people confuse “head canon”-their own interpolations to a text they make so as to make the text make sense to them-and the actual text itself. In other words, some of these critics are attempting to dominate the writers’ actual words with their own thoughts instead of taking the writers’ text as the basis for criticism. If a writer’s work cannot be understood as a logical, emotional, or thematic whole without the reader (or watcher) inserting numerous interpolations or by ignoring one element of the text because they don’t like it, then the reader ought to write his own story rather than insist that “what the author meant to say was…”
Honestly the reason I love Corey and his explanation is that they are actually thought through. Ever since 2020 everyone has suddenly taken on this self-proclaimed Gospel expert on everyone and everything on earth. It really bugs me as many are arguing in a way that their arguments are play ground fights and writing headlines and RUclips thumbnails "RINGS OF POWER SHOWRUNNERS HATE TOLKIEN!!", and they have very little intellectual formation. These works were made by a scholar, historian, linguist and mythologist. If you are gonna do a dive in and breakdown of a Tolkien adaptation you need to take all of those things that Tolkien was and loved into account or else you'll just get everything completely wrong. A lot of these fanbases give me cult of Morgoth vibes - sacrificing the dignity of a person just to win an argument and that makes me feel pretty ill.
I thought you loved him because he lies his @ss off every time he opens his mouth.
Or maybe because all the videos calling out his lies word by word while also giving the source of the information that proves him a liar, are very funny.
I think the bothers me, with you mentioning the “playground fights,” is how easily insults and the like get slung around. Shill, hater, “not a fan,” “true fan.” These are such loaded terms and just get thrown out. Why does this have to be a battleground? Why does each side have to try to stomp the other down?
Anecdotal, but a close friend and I have had disagreements on movies and shows. Star Wars, Marvel, etc. Never once have we insinuated anything like that against the other, we’ve simply acknowledged that we have different tastes, and have had some good discussions around media and what we liked and didn’t like and why, with respect for each other.
I don’t understand the constant mudslinging at Corey and calling him a liar, personally, as he approaches these things also from a different angle (notably, a teaching university professor with degrees in Medieval lit, iirc) and he loves to look at themes, thus this channel. And whether someone agrees with him or not, he has raised excellent questions about other stuff before, and my favorite of his questions when analyzing (especially as I work through “Exploring the Lord of the Rings”), is along the lines of “well, why do we assume that element to be the case? Is it from the text here? One of the later books of notes from Christopher? Our own imaginations? The movies?” It such a neat question to pause and ask and, from what I can tell, can lead to some interesting discussions.
Very interesting video. One thing that makes me smile is the way Tolkien himself wrestled with a shifting vision of the interaction with Gollum from the original version of The Hobbit to a later version that fit better with the Lord of the Rings. By framing Bilbo as the author of the work with a shifting version of the story as part of his relationship to the ring in The Prologue it neatly addresses it and gives even more power in the alternative retelling. The references to Frodo carrying on the record of the history in book form mirrors in some ways the works completed by his son. Seeing the works as fictional legends, folklore and a complex history with all the complexities that a retelling of history brings makes the stories even more rich and rewarding to study.
the power of money and ignorance
Well said Cory, respectful intelligent and thoughtful as always
Great video as always. And the same toxic haters in the comments as always. To them i can only say: Go back to your kindergarden and leave the adults alone.
File this under the "it's happening and it's good" stage of revision defence.
Hey I love the show, love the channel, and just wanted to put that out there. Internet is so negative. I’m one that enjoys the content.
'Hey I am real person, first name last name string of numbers and I love this product and support it. I am real human who enjoys content. I am excited for next product.'
Thank you for being, as always, the voice of reason.
Eagerly awaiting your episode 8 breakdown!
Yuo! I have been looking out for it!
I’m almost hunger striking 😂
They said they have like 26 hours of content they'll release between now and Christmas
@@davin1287 🤤
@@davin1287 I know but I’m just saying the truth 😂
An excellent discussion on the use and misuse of the word “canon” by so many internet wannabe Tolkien “experts”. Whether the rings of power is a brilliant, mediocre or just plain bad tv show is another discussion entirely, irrespective of any alleged deviation from “canon”.
I don't see any problem with people not liking the deviations from cannon in Rings of Power. Every adaptation has deviations from its source. You don't need to be a big Tolkien expert to asess aspects which are original to the show and don't appear in Tolkien's works.
@@Baadan37 But see the issue is people like that can’t have a discussion beyond “that’s valid” “thats not valid”.
Instead of discussing the nuances of how the show runners (or any other adaptation) came to a conclusion, it’s just “That’s not what really happened! I hate that it’s different!”
And…to be blunt that’s just not an interesting conversation.
@@Baadan37 There's nothing wrong with recognizing those deviations or even not liking them. However, I've seen many people point to the mere fact that such deviations exist as proof positive that the writers don't know Tolkien or that the show is bad simply because of the changes.
That is to say, some people act as if having differences is somehow objectively bad, when it's far more subjective than that.
@@TheJmack90 I think that you are simplifying things a little bit. I don't think that these people you mention just hate it because it is different from what Tolkien wrote. They PJ movies had deviations as well which were much better recieved by the audiences.
@@Baadan37 Here’s the thing, I don’t really care to have this type of conversation because it just leads to “I don’t like Rings of Power”.
And again, nothing wrong with that, but it’s well known that there are people who don’t like the show. We get it.
And last time I checked there is actually zero times when the wizard Gandalf comes to oppose Sauron in the 2nd age. So you can’t just use the excuse of saying he changed his mind there. Olorin makes a very brief appearance in a tale about the Elessar stone. But is that what they are going with? Is that seriously better to you? Than going with the most widely known and beloved version of his character origin?
_>"Olorin makes a very brief appearance in a tale about the Elessar stone."
@@Tar-Elenion I thought so too. But it is listed under 2nd age in unfinished tales.
@@Adamadam-zc6pe So are parts when Galadriel and Celeborn go to Lorien in the Third Age and take up guardianship there. And parts about them being in Aman or Beleriand in the First Age.
These indicate Third Age:
"...Olórin (who was known in Middle-earth as Mithrandir) brought it with him out of the West."
"For the years of her exile began to lie heavy on the Lady of the Noldor, and she longed for news of her kin and for the blessed land of her birth, and yet was unwilling to forsake Middle-earth."
"‘Yet for a little while that might be amended, if the Elessar should return. For a little, until the Days of Men are come.’"
"‘For surely the Valar are now removed and Middle-earth is far from their thought, and all who cling to it are under a shadow.’"
Mithrandir is a Third Age name.
The years of Galadriel's exile would be weighing on her in the Third Age, rather than the Second where she rejected pardon, desiring to stay.
It will be, relatively speaking, a 'little while' until the Days of Men (the Fourth Age).
The Valar being now removed seems indicative of Aman being removed from the 'physical' world.
@@Tar-Elenion How do those indicate Third Age?
What if Gandalf is one of the blue wizard? Adaptation. Adaptation. ADAPTATION!
If we are going to talk about authority, then you have none compared to Tolkien, whose words make it very clear how he would feel about the way adaptations like Rings of Power have treated his works and writings: "The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."
Did you even watch the video, Corey addresses the very same quote you just used ...
@@ThomasLambeir I did watch it, which is why I know that he conveniently left out most of the quote, specifically the part that illustrates Tolkien's thoughts on adaptations like Rings of Power: "the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies."
@@elearrandir4873 its a valid criticism of adaptions but not of what's canon which is Corey's point.
@@ThomasLambeir Yes, I'll admit I wasn't directly addressing Corey's main point in this video with that comment, but that's okay, others have already done so and satisfactorily debunked it in other comments.
You apparently did not watch this video LOL
But I thought "canon" was everything done by Peter Jackson in the trilogy and any deviation was "woke trash" 😂
I recently read Leaf By Niggle. And its such an insight into Tolkien's ever-changing writings on Middle-Earth. It was always growing or scuttled by outside sources. You're right, canon isn't applicable to a man who often changed his mind about his own stories ❤️
Best short story ever! 'Leaf' is Tolkien re-imagining himself.
Leaf by Niggle is a very powerful story. As an artist, it tells me how to love my art but not at the expense of life and community. I like to ask the canon people if the original Star Wars is canon over the remakes from the 90? It’s impossible to answer so the word canon is not appropriate because there is no 1 authority, including Lucus who would tell everyone that the muppet infused remake is the ‘canon’ version, and would respectfully disagree.
Right! Like, we don’t even know who Gil-Galad’s dad is lololol. There’s contradictions like that galore. These ppl have been whining on Reddit since before the show even started…when they found out there was a black hobbit
@@NicoleStevensHays11x yes, I’m being called a post modernist nihilist because I don’t think canon is an appropriate term for Tolkien study. It’s really sad and hilarious at the same time.
Love this video. Great explanation and I would love some of these internet trolls to debate Olsen on Tolkien and get embarrassed.
I would love to do it. Maybe he can explain how as a Tolkien professor he could make so many mistakes
Sure thing, totally real person and not a paid Amazon bot being run by a fat Indian guy.
Your precious Olsen already ran from a debate with them... :D
Do your next video on the word "shill"
"Well, you know my name although you don't remember I belong to it;. I am Corry Shill Olsen, and Shill means... ME!"
You should listen to one on "how to be a decent human being".
Honestly, the internet really brings out the worst in people.
@@TomOnTheTube Yeah, there are some people who actually defend blatant liars.
Like you, for example.
@@TomOnTheTube Calling out liars is bad now.
Thanks for tellings us.
@@stunningbrave5819
Why do you talk to people like dirt. Try being civilised.
Get their asses Corey. The hater trolls are just that. Never forget they are a vocal minority. Love Rings and Realms and appreciate all you do. Keep up the good work!
Same here.
Still checking everyday for the review of episode 8.
Considering the dwindling audiences of Rings of Power, I highly doubt that critics of the show are a minority.
@@ahimsamovies4484 strange. I was just listening to Alan Sisto, Sara Brown and James Tauber who were saying how audience numbers are up from Season 1 and it was topped rated show on Prime outside the USA.
Brother look at the ratio
We are not in the minority
@@ebenkoen7289 What ratio? Visible dislike extensions are wildly inaccurate.
What he says about the Sil is entirely true.
Lmao, all because some ass wrote a tv show there cant be canon anymore
Yeah according to Profe$$or Amazon and Bezos-bots, Amazon can make a 'sequel' where the ring wasn't destroyed at all because ' what canon?'
@@bdleo300you people are lemmings.
It’s been 3 years. You shoulda moved on AGES ago. You wouldn’t catch me watching ANY show even 1 episode past when I decided I disliked it. Yet u cling ons stay here, changing nothing, accomplishing nothing, tantruming over a show u should have turned off forever ago. It’s too bad u have no real life or responsibilities
@@bdleo300 awe, did u think the show was made with u in mind? NO SHOW is made to cater to far right lost causes, let alone Tolkien police or gatekeepers. You can complain until the show has been over for 20 years. You’ll have nothing to for. Nothing will change. The mainstream is well aware adaptations are different than writings, enjoys the show, and would never be so bothered by the writings of a dead dude or a single tv show
@@bdleo300 And why would any of us wanna just watch exactly what we have already read being played out on a screen lol. How boring.
Someone should make an adaptation where Sam is a coward and a cheat, and Gollum becomes a faithful companion, while Frodo uses the Ring to kind of turn Super Saiyan and destroy Sauron to save the world.
I would love that
That could be a fun parody, if done well.
Someone should make a version where Gollum sprinkles some crumbs on Sam’s jacket so Frodo will think he stole all of their food and send him away to his death, and Sam shouldn’t defend himself at all and just sort of leave despite knowing he didn’t eat the food
…wait
@@ecta9604 As I praised that scene in my original comment, I feel compelled to...
...wait.
Well, I guess that's fair because "there is no canon in Tolkien"
when is episode 8 coming out? really want to see it
Oh my, the comments on this one will be SPICY
Professor gaslight at it again.
Yes. and Yes. and Yes! Thank you! The Legendarium was indeed Tolkien's life work, from before WW1 to the day he died. He lived it, breathed it, changed it, came back to it. All those ideas....we are blessed with his Letters, and his son Christopher, for opening up the canon of worms, so we can SEE how this subcreation was in a constant state of creation.
These seems like it's addressing an argument no one is really having. Is anyone debating whether The Silmarillion is canon or not? It seems like the contention is that Rings of Power alters the canon to it's own ends. If, as you're arguing, we can't defer to Tolkien's published work as an ABSOLUTE authority, surely we can defer to it as having SOME authority, or to the point, MORE authority than the canon as interpreted by journeymen screenwriters in service of a billion dollar corporation.
It seems you have your arguments backwards, there. I've heard quite a few discussions over whether or not The Silmarillion should be considered canon. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone claim that Rings of Power is canon.
This argument comes down to a personal dislike of the corporation funding the project, and a refusal to grant it any authority to interpret Tolkien’s work. It’s just anti-corporate bias. Take the work on its merit and stop pointing at Jeff Bezos as the issue.
There’s threads on Reddit of u ppl hating on the show before it even aired. Blew my mind when I stumbled on them. Freaking tantrums over black hobbits. A bunch of whiners came to ROP expecting it to be some extension of detestable far-right politics & identity politics. Pretty hilarious… a minority in society think TV shows exist to cater to their mental illnesses
@@NicoleStevensHays11x And for good reason, the trailers were SOO Weird, and the people working on it...
It looked like we had another "Disney Star Wars" situation on our hands. And it all turned out to be true.
Exactly what people expected, maybe somehow even worse considdering the costumes, cast, acting, and writing.
All of it was on a whole other level of trash.
Oh, this warms my English teacher heart!
I like to define “canon” in this context as “fans arguing over whether or not imaginary events happened to imaginary people in an imaginary universe”. As much as I appreciate a solid narrative, some of this “canon” debate is getting absurd.
Why can't I have a Toyota camry in Rings of Power? After all "There’s No Such Thing Really As Canon In Tolkien" . Those fans sure are being obtuse on what "imaginary events happened to imaginary people in an imaginary universe"
SERIOUSLY!!!!
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri lmao who cares what u think? Find me 5 people
@@NicoleStevensHays11x You care what I think, I care what I think, so thats bare minimum of two and the fact that you're upset at fans arguing about imaginary things shows me that there are alot of wiggle room to argue.
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri lmao don’t lay that at MY feet. I definitely don’t care what you think. I’ve been in breast cancer diagnosis & treatment since October 2023 for grade 3 (most aggressive one), stage 3A breast cancer at just age 39. I’ve got a 40% chance of being dead within 15 years. I had a 25% chance of surviving my car accident and 26.7% chance of surviving the hemorrhagic stroke 2 yrs after, but still…. how would I care about any of this garbage? I think that the entire thing is needless and ridiculous. I just wanna be able to watch my show & look up things about it in peace…the same way that I let other ppl watch their shows in peace.
You’re dancing around with semantics. While Tolkien did adjust certain elements, especially peripheral ones like the Blue Wizards, his established lore includes immovable milestones-the core events, characters, and themes he returned to time and again. Citing the Blue Wizards as an example of Tolkien’s evolving ideas misrepresents the nature of his revisions and sidesteps the fundamental importance of these milestones. It’s a straw man argument that diverts attention from the real issue: the liberties taken with Tolkien’s core themes, characters, and historical events in The Rings of Power, which ultimately misrepresents the intended mythos he spent decades developing. Tolkien was pretty clear on Galadriel’s romantic history and Annatar’s role in the ring making. Your statement continues to be over favorable to a mishandling of established lore.
“Established lore” = that which I have authority to define as lore and no one else. Not even, it seems, the Tolkien estate itself as it is involved in the production of RoP.
@@Heat3YT2 I’m not sure what you’re saying. I just want to be clear, myself. ‘Established” in “Established lore” is a past tense word. I’m suggesting there is a point when new adjustments to the lore and timeline are complete. That milestone can be argued when the books authored by Tolkien were published-or after Tolkien’s passing. I think strong arguments could be made for either. I think his passing is more definitive.
Came across threads on Reddit where u ppl hated the show before it even aired LMAO. Black hobbits really got to u fragile ones
Lmao, it takes an incel to call something romantic when 2 ppl didn’t even so much as kiss, or even HUG!!!
@@NicoleStevensHays11x You forgot to write ya'll.
I can't wait for the next Black Panther movie starring an all-white cast of blue-eyed Aryans. Can you?
Race-baiting ta rd.
At the end of the day, the Tolkien Estate approved everything Rings of Power did. The Tolkien Estate have the rights to all Tolkien works. It's the Tolkien Estate who decide what's canon or not. So, Rings of Power is perfectly acceptable in the Tolkien multiverse and spirit, according to them. The end.
I do not think that is true. The Tolkien estate don’t have approval rights - that legal entity just holds the rights to things not covered in the other rights package that the Jackson films and ROP are based upon. At least that is how I understand the motion picture rights situation. There was a package of rights that Tolkien sold off long ago that is the basis for all of the movies and shows - and that rights package is what Amazon is using , and the estate company has no legal authority over it.
Let’s be honest, Tolkien would probably reacted surprised if someone said to him “Look here’s a Tolkien expert writing on you!” and he’d probably say something like: “An Tolkien expert? Sounds awfully like someone needs a good smoke to clear the mind. There is nothing to be expert on as of currently save getting this pipe lit.” Or something like that.
Yea? Be honest. How do you know? Are you the authority that establishes canon and knows the mind of Tolkien better than everyone? You dismiss Corey for being an “expert” (he doesn’t call himself that) but when you make your own assumptions on Tolkien mind in the next sentence is pretty… dishonest.
@@ZephyrOptional dude I don’t know I’m just amusing myself with the thought 😂😂 it’s all very silly and all this stuff about being “an expert” is rather childish. They’re simply good stories a man wrote for his amusement and that of his children, nothing more and nothing less.
@@oenchanteddoveart6294 it’s fair that you think studying Tolkien lore is silly but 99% of Tolkien book fans would strongly disagree that he wrote nothing more or less than children’s stories for his own amusement. Do you also think Shakespeare was just some playwright trying to make a living and those who study his writings are childish? It’s ok to be a mild Tolkien fan but might not want to challenge those who take it more serious and study Tolkien academically.
@@ZephyrOptional he literally said that’s why he wrote it. And you misquoted me, the silliness lies in the obsession. Obsession leads to degradation and thence hate. There’s nothing wrong with studying his works. I consider myself student to him. What’s silly is the constant bamboozling madness to try and destroy a person’s social status. Art builds upon man’s humanity and his ability to think and discover greater truths beyond himself. You are right that studying These works academically are important. Such works build the very excellence of man’s potential to exist in a culture where one might feed off them and create works greater than those previously. So yes studying these things are good, but tearing one another down is terrible and a wretched thing to do around any great artist’s work.
@@oenchanteddoveart6294 first off, I did not quote you. Second, I’m glad you agree Tolkien is worth study. Therefore, ‘canon’ is an inappropriate word to use to study the Legendarium because per its definition, it requires an authoritative source that contradicts what Tolkien was doing with his Legendarium. Per Tolkien there is no 1 authority as written. The stories are scribed and translated and passed down and filled with intentional errors and discrepancies within the stories themselves. Do you know who Pengolodh and Aelfwine are? If you do, you’ll understand why Tolkien doesn’t have ‘canon’, it’s a legendarium, which means it has a life that ‘canon heads’ just don’t comprehend.
I think the story's canonical PARTS are well-established and with repeatable motifs. I disagree that there is no canon in Tolkien's work. There is canon to some parts and they should be respected and studied when talking about so-called "non-canon" parts.
lol at “respected.” If u find a TV show disrespectful, you can turn it off. Instead, we have an infestation of far right creepers and self-anointed “Tolkien police” who have had nothing better to do for the past 3 years … and now, in the off-season, are STILL infesting spaces where fans belong. Normal ppl don’t terrorize shows they don’t like. Normal ppl don’t even have the time of day
Really well put together thoughts Cory on ‘Canon’. Thanks for this
This is fascinating. Jackson’s films, though beloved are not word for word accurate to Tolkien’s writings. Some characters are left out completely, some are original and often character’s famous lines are given to other characters for the benefit of making the movie work better. Are Jackson’s six middle earth films ‘canon?’ Lovecraft doesn’t seem to have so much controversy regarding canon as he welcomed other writers contributing to the Cthulhu mythos.
Star Wars fans have the first six Lucas movies as canon and everything after as ‘Disney Canon’?
I don't know a lot about that particular topic, but I think the notion of canon in Star Wars is what's helping to warp the argument here. It's important to understand that Star Wars was primarily developed for a visual medium, and its creator (to the extent that it was created by an individual) is still alive and as such able to provide authoritative decisions or opinion on additions to canon.
Conversely the Middle Earth legendarium was a (primarily) a collection of literary works by a now-deceased author. This makes any visual addition to canon impossible, even if you do somehow define what canon is.
If I define canon as "anything that Tolkien wrote", that is as acceptable as anything I guess (although still problematic because there are a number of conflicting writings). That means that the few works published during Tolkien's lifetime, and that Dr. Olsen mentioned, are canon. Importantly works like the Silmarillion are not canon themselves, but are very accurately *based* on writings that are canonical. Under this definition, no movie (or TV) adaptation can be considered canon because they all INVENT things (otherwise they'd be just a video of the words on the page). The closest things to canon in the LoTR films are quotes that are word for word what Tolkien wrote. You could say the words themselves are canon, but only because they were defined as such IN THE BOOK. The quote itself definitely can't be considered canon though, because the quote invents a number of things additional to what Tolkien wrote, including accent, cadence, tone, volume and even facial expressions that can't easily be separated from the words themselves. A better question is "how canonically accurate are Jackson's middle earth films?"
Of course that doesn't mean that the films, or any other adaptations, aren't valuable additions to the story. As much as I think "sexy Shelob" from the Shadow of War video game is ludicrous, I did enjoy the game, in the same way I'd enjoy a good parody of a film or book, and it's always interesting to see how others interpret that thing that you like.
So, how canonically accurate are Jackson's middle earth films? Not very, but I'd say mostly out of necessity. I think I could rattle off 100 significant omissions or changes though, at least.
Star Wars has had extensive "canon Wars" for at least 2 decades. Long before Disney there were rifts between movie canon purists and the readers/consumers of the Expanded Universe novels, comics and video games. Now there's at least 3 rifts, because I'm sure the movies only types are still around, the Expanded Universe fans that refuse to accept anything published/produced post 2012 are around, and then there's the fans of "Disney canon" as well. I wouldn't call it a rift with the people that just enjoy what they enjoy from every era of Star Wars production, since they/we tend to stay out of those battles. I have no problems reading and enjoying books and comics and playing video games from the current "Disney era" or the "Expanded Universe era" simultaneously.
Similarly, I can enjoy Rings of Power as it's own thing in adaptation of the Second Age of Middle-Earth while recognizing the differences from what we know of Tolkien's writings on the subject and how much he worked on and altered it over time. I had finished listening to the Simarillion audiobook a couple weeks before ROP season 2 finished and then listened to the audio of the Fall of Numenor in the final week. I personally found it all really fascinating, and interesting to see where elements in ROP find their genesis in those constantly shifting writings.
The "canon" talk is really a red herring about what's acceptable and what isn't in the show, what is accurate, or what would even just be recommended (as given in Tolkien's own text).
And you use one definition but think you can also talk about the other definition this way and sweep it aside. But the topic remains.
Preach!
Keep nuancing this discussion and discourse which so often fall off the rails 🙂
_>"A Canon is an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon by some group of people whose authority to do so is broadly accepted."
Apparently there are millions of Tolkien canon experts in the comments of every Rings of Power Instagram post or RUclips video.
And even more fascinating is the fact that, apparently, most of them didn't even read the books! We truly live in interesting times, my friends.
They would refer to movies or other hate perpetuated by youtubers because it sells or tolkien gateway which is a summary of things not actual books laid out.
A fantastic representation of how disliked RoP is by people who are fans of Tolkien's world
And three times as many mindless shills that eat all the slop they're given
Rings of the thang flopped hard, keep coping.
Amen!!! He changed alll the time! Been saying this forever lol
Not very scholarly of the “professor “ I hope it’s been worth it Corey.
love you to pieces Corey, but i'm afraid you are going to have to take the L on this one.
(this is not the first time this topic has come up.) you are trying to argue a very esoteric definition of cannon and transpose that into a colloquial dialogue. we all colloquially understand the 'cannon' being he published work and understand that the author had evolving ideas on his work. (that's not uncommon.) by saying "no" cannon is giving license to just make up whatever you want.
Your fans all know you don't believe that, but that's what your words are communicating. (and that's not what those who abuse Tolkiens work and remake it in their own image are hearing. Like Morgoth corrupting creation, you cannot say the music never existed in the first place.)
The only one more legit than this guy is Woopie Goldberg.
When she stated that people who dislike ROP have not read the books of J. K. Tolkien, she really won me over.
I had to look into myself and admit, that I actually have never read the books of J. K. Tolkien.
This is incorrect. I dislike ROP and I have read a lot of Tolkien's books. But imo it's not necessary to read the books to realise that the show is bad. Independent of it being a bad adaptation it's a bad show in its own right.
@@Lothiril Sarcasm aside, yes.
The show is bad, nay, terrible, even if you look at it as it's own thing.
Good sarcasm, but with how demented some people are these days at first I was not sure if it is in fact sarcasm, lol.
What a time to be alive, ideocracy, truly.
@@haydencarn8737 I know, that's a recurring problem for me as well nowadays...
Scarry.
Well said, Professor! You are absolutely spot on, and I'm so glad you addressed this topic. It just drives me crazy that people refuse to see the whole picture and make pronouncements about the legitimacy of an adaptation based on some arbitrary personal definition (or understanding of others' use of the word). Or even worse, just accept what someone else has said without bothering to look into it themselves with an open mind. This is why Rings & Realms and the work you and Dr. Parke do is so important. It makes me sad that others refuse to listen and throw out the "paid shill" argument, which is lazy at best and defamation at worst.
I think not many people out there would argue that "canon" is only for published material. As far as I am concerned, all of Tolkien's writings are canon, so there IS a canon. That's was Tolkien wrote, whether it contradicts itself or not.
But there is a BIG difference between saying "all that Tolkien wrote is canon" and "there is no such thing as canon" regarding Tolkien's work, which is what you said. Especially because you used it while justifying choices in RoP that have nothing to do with what Tolkien wrote, whether published or unpublished.
When Rings of Power changes stuff that is not in ANY of Tolkien's writings, it goes indeed against canon. RoP's silly idea of having Gandalf fly into Middle-earth as a meteor in the Second Age cannot be excused by pointing at Tolkien writing that Olorin was in Middle-earth before the Third Age, because Olorin was there as a Maia, not as an Istar. The Istar Gandalf arrived in the Third Age, and nothing in any of Tolkien's writings, published or otherwise, says something else.
Imo, the relevant definitions of "canon" in this discussion are:
- Oxford Dictionary: a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the real work of a particular writer or as being important
- Merriam-Webster: the authentic works of a writer
- Britannica: the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written
- Cambridge: all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person
- Collins: A canon of texts is a list of them that is accepted as genuine or important.
If you dislike Rings of Power, why are u still talking about it? It’s been 3 years dude. Why does it even bother you? U should not even be watching it! I don’t understand how u ppl can be this fragile, getting upset this easily…
I grew up in an alcoholic madhouse where cops were over constantly, multiple times per week, and wouldn’t change a thing. The hell w/ being coddled to death and the resulting fragile “adults”
Also, u ppl really take to take some Xanax…even if it means holding u down and shoving some of that rectal Ativan into u. We fans shouldn’t have to dredge thru a swamp of far-right sewage just to look up something about our show. The way u guys carry on about a tv show is unbelievable and so unhealthy. Idk how u ppl even function in life. If this is ur reaction to a TV SHOW, how do u ppl handle REAL problems?!
@@NicoleStevensHays11x You, your wifes kid and your wife need that xanax for sure.
@@NicoleStevensHays11x I'm talking about the canon of Tolkien's work. I'm referencing RoP only to point out what isn't canon. For thst argument it's irrelevant whether I like or dislikes ROP, the point is that many of its story elements are not canon, because they disagree with Tolkien's work.
It's weird that you accuse me of begin fragile though, when apparently you have a hard time dealing with other people having different opinions and expressing them. What's it to you whether I like or dislike RoP, and whether I discuss it or not? You, too, can just scroll by my comment. If you don't like what I have to say, no need to engage, right? Why does it bother you? You should not even be reading it.
@@NicoleStevensHays11xIf someone dislikes something there's no legitimate reason as to why they shouldn't voice their opinions on why they dislike it. Would the world be a better place if people don''t speak up about the issues they have with things, whether about very serious subjects or ones less so, as not to appear as 'fragile' to others? I don't think so.
The Rings of Power doesn't even stick to it's OWN canon, let alone what it claims to be based on. Quit shilling.
No thanks, LOSER.
If the RoP bothers you to this extent, may I suggest you neither watch nor engage in any discussion of it? Your peptic ulcer will thank you.
@@suzannelucero86 can you put into words the extent to which you think the show bothers me based on a single sentence disparaging it? Or do you somehow feel such a personal connection to the product of a multi billion dollar company that you feel the need to lash out at those who dislike it? If anyone's ulcers are at risk here, they aren't mine sweetheart.
Quit being insufferable, I would like to say to you in turn
@@suzannelucero86 But then how can I insult tourists like you who are the cancer of society?
Thank you for this video. It's refreshing to see someone making the point that when it comes to Tolkien, there isn't any definitive canon. The author was revisiting and rewriting his stories throughout his life, including details about characters in LOTR. The character of Galadriel is a case in point: her story morphed and changed over more than 5 decades and (as his son Christopher points out in Unfinished Tales) the author was rewriting her story once again in the final month of his life.
When you look at some of the author's later writings about Galadriel, you find that she is often described in the First Age as proud and wilful. That seems more in line with the character as portrayed in The Rings of Power than LOTR.
in the FIRST age
Of course there is canon. The Hobbit and LOTR (latest editions) are absolutely canon. Minor contradictions exist in every literal work by any writer. Everything published after his death is debatable. But saying that canon does not exist at all is absurd.
Maybe it's not about cannon . Maybe I just don't like the ROP showrunners' interpretation of Tolkien's work.
Its certainly not about the thing that goes boom! (speling) However its perfectly fine for you to not like it. Cory is not defending the quality of the show here. He's try to explain why canon is a problematic way of looking at Tolkien's work, and thereby defending his previous remarks about it.
Corey, thank you very much for making this video. There are lots of us Tolkien fans that love the lore as well as all the adaptations. We’re really tired of all the “canon” purists telling us that we’re not “real” Tolkien fans because we don’t view all of his writing the same way they do. I sincerely believe that the canon is whatever the individual thinks it is.
How can canon be "whatever an individual thinks it is"? People have many different ideas that they want Tolkien to have meant but that doesn't change what Tolkien actually wrote.
Canon is and will always be what Tolkien actually wrote (there is some nuance in his posthumously published work - but precedence goes to what he actually published and what his most recent revisions were as well as what he wrote about characters and events in his letters). I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept - if you are a fan of Tolkien, you are a fan of what Tolkien actually wrote not the changes that some adaptation or interpretation introduces.
Thank you for this canonical explaination of the word "canon".
Staggeringly thoughtful as usual. Thank you Tolkien Prof!
Tolkien wrote: "Sauron have never laid hands or touched the three rings" and he NEVER wrote anther he did.
the rings of power have Sauron eyeing nenya.
and, for you, that's okay. so, grow a pair, and make a video saying that"it's okay to CHANGE what THE author wrote" NOT "filling the blanks " but changing the original material.
or to use your blue wizard ANALogy - so we can say the blue wizards came to middle earth in the first age and created the hobbits with the spark of the flame imperishable they stole earlier while eru slept? really?
Technically, he never did touch Nenya. He saw it, obviously knew of its existence both in show and in the book, but he doesn’t get to lay a finger on it. Based on the idea of his touch, Nenya is still unsullied by him.
@@davidbeer5015 he never knew or saw the three, they were made last and hidden from him. he only took knowledge of them when he put the one in his finger.
but, with enough money, there is no cannon, so, apparently the three could have been prince Albert's piercings for Sauron at some point. maybe in season three
The one missing a pair is you. Splitting hairs over a TV show you shoulda turned off years ago… God have mercy on u ppl when u move out of ur parents’ basement and face real life problems
@@NicoleStevensHays11x Says the person taking time out of her rich and full life outside of the basement to comment here, huh?
This is a straw man. It matters not one jot that Tolkien himself changed his mind while writing, but it matters an awful lot if - as in The Rings of Power - total inconsistency with everything he did causes a stew of indigestible chunks of story that completely conflict with the lore. The most reprehensible example is in the R.o.P. portrayal of Galadriel, who - if the writers had even glanced at the Silmarillion - is barely of the human world, but somewhere between the realm of angels and human. She does not wield a sword, because her immense power is of a different order and she moves in other dimensions that few can grasp. That is what we might call 'feminine' in the spiritual sense. Tolkien is totally consistent in portraying her this way, and she does not wield the ordinary weapons that mortals do. Likewise, Sauron was once a lofty Being, like an Archangel - actually similar to William Blake's painting 'Satan In His Original Glory', but fell into a profound darkness in following Morgoth. To show him as just a 'man' and Galadriel merely as a feisty feminist showing off to show her equality or superiority to the male characters is a complete travesty. It's plain to me that Tolkien would have hated the way this abuse of his writing has twisted upside down the whole meaning of his narratives, which do actually, cohere. The R.o.P. does not cohere with anything he wrote, even fundamentally.
He even rewrote a whole chapter of The Hobbit!
He started rewiting the entire book and got as far as theTrollshaws before giving up
Tolstoy revisited entire War and Peace, and basically every author ever. So what? Of course there is canon. The Hobbit and LOTR (latest editions) are absolutely canon. Minor contradictions exist in every literal work by any writer. Everything published after his death is debatable. But saying that canon does not exist at all is absurd.
@@bdleo300 Tolkien actually made it part of the Lord of the Rings that the written text isn't necessarily authoritative.
Which is in itself Bewoulf fan fiction. Clearly wasn't so opposed to fan fiction to do it himself 😂
Great explanation. Thank you good Mister for this.
1:03 I thought it was a big gun....your the Proffesor though. 😂
Wow, can’t even spell professor in the age of spell check…. who would take u seriously LMAO
Sellout
WHERE IS EPISODE 8?!?!?!
I put more stock in what Tolkien said than your straw-maning and shilling. Tolkein said on a 1958 failed adaption of LOTR "The canons of narrative in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies..... and I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery. |
I mean…apparently in that script, Faramir’s body just started floating and Radagast was an Eagle, among other wild things. Yeah. That’s quite the departure and could be seen as a perversion.
"Well that's very wise Professor Tolkien. But actually when you say the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different, I agree with you. But can't they be very different? Or slightly different? Or rather different? What we'd like to know is how different is it possible for them to be? Again, the problem is not perceiving where the core of the original lies. Okay, where's the core of the original? Tell us that and then we'll get a bit further forward."
-Professor Tom Shippey
And would you also apply that quote to the Jackson films, which changed the characters far more than they changed plot and scenery?
@@jj48 He wasn't actually speaking to Tolkien. What he said in the lecture was ... "Then he went on and he said, "The problem is, not perceiving where the core of the original lies." And I thought, "Well that's very wise Professor Tolkien...."
And yes, I do apply it to the Peter Jackson films as well, but I am not going to waste both our time writing an essay arguing the large difference of degree in these cases. I think the original Jackson trilogy keeps to the core while ROP does not. Shippey does have a much better take in his lecture than this slop. The lecture you are quoting from is "Tolkien Book to Jackson Script: the Medium and the Message". It is not a perfect adaptation either, but good enough to be enjoyable. I am not a complete purist either, but the problem is 'precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies".
You do not have to agree, that is fine, and I hope people do like the show even if I do not. It would be a huge waste of money if no one liked it, and I do not want that. I do not even want the show to fail, this adaptation doesn't harm the original work at all. I'm not trying to get anyone to dislike the show, but I am sick of being told that I have to give the show a pass on its jibberish because there is not really any such things as Tolkien canon. There is canon. Frodo destroyed the one ring, I'd say that is canon. Also, both Shippey and Tolkien say there is canon too. It is a ridiculous argument, made particularly grating in this instance because this argument about canon is self-serving crap from a man paid to advertise and justify the show.
Regardless, I have spent too much time on this already, and it is not helping anyone. Keep smiling stranger! Have a great day.
@@RamblingZhen What makes you think Corey's being paid to advertise and justify the show? Listen to his "Riddles in the Dark" podcast that he did leading up to the Hobbit films, and you'll see that this is just his approach to thinking about adaptation.
You don't understand Tolkien. That's the issue 😂
Are we not doing an 8th episode?
They're still working on it.
@@jj48 3 weeks later, when crowd funded, not a great look. People
Will have to rewatch the show just to watch an analysis so they can remember.
@@gutcassidyandthesundancech5925 From what I hear, they've got something like 26 hours of footage to go through, and there were other scheduling conflicts delaying things.
And why would rewatching it be a bad thing? Those of us interested in actually discussing the episode are probably watching it multiple times anyway, and those just watching the analyses probably weren't planning on watching the show to begin with.
Amazon sucks.
Then don’t use it. If anyone agreed with you, it wouldn’t be the empire it is. But far far right weirdos are perpetually unable to cope w/ being society’s outcasts and their opinions being beyond unpopular!
Sure does. But that's independent of holding Morgoth like ideas about controlling creation
Cant believe he doubled down on this, and gaslight fans
You have a poor understanding of what the word 'gaslight' actually means.
He doesnt want to lose that access.
@@mordorobsidian No, you. Please define Gaslight for us.
Only shallow fans who like "da trilogy" and don't know much Tolkien and his views.
@@AntonSmyth-od6rc Except those shallow fans literally have Tolkiens letters which detail how much he hated people changing his canon.
Arguments over Tolkien's "canon" reflect debates over religious canons in general. Example from Christianity: what is canon and declared part of a New Testament was fought over for *centuries* and is _still_ fought over. People fighting over Tolkien adaptations are very much like Christians arguing over which ancient text to believe and how to believe it.
The main difference being that determining what words come from God and what words come from Man to guide doctrinal interpretations seems a bit more important than determining which version of a fictional story an author was happiest with. With religious texts, the question of "canon" can be pretty important. With fantasy, it's an interesting discussion, at best.
@@jj48 "... determining what words come from God and what words come from Man ... seems a bit more important than determining which version of a fictional story an author was happiest with. ..."
@@jj48 it's ALL fiction my man
@@TheDanEdwards I'm aware that some people will view it as such. However, I would hope that even they could put enough thought into it to see that, if any writing were from God, it would be pretty important to distinguish them.
The Canon of the NT is only argued today as a subtopic within the debate about Sola Scriptura, with only a few exceptions from obvious heretics (the Mormons, for example). The 27 books have been established for over a thousand years and are not up for debate anymore.
"... because it's writers just love those other writings of Tolkien that some people want to exclude as non-canonical."
Yea okay so which of those "other Tolkien writings" had Elrond making out with his mother-in-law, who incidentally Sauron also happens to a crush on?
Calling it a makeout with his mother-in-law-to be-is a bit exaggerated. But if you want to get technical, The Reason of Isengard has a bit in the Lothlorien chapter where Galadriel is “the wife of Elrond.” I don’t think that that is where it comes from, though. I think it’s an invention for the moment in the story much like Frodo being taken to Osgiliath, Treebeard needing to be told to go south and see the deforestation to be hasty and attack, or even the beacons being lit by Pippin.
As for Sauron’s interest in her, that could be taken as a read of “he desires to know my mind.”
Minor edit to prior comment because silly phone…from “The Treason of Isengard” not “The Reason of Isengard”
@@davidbeer5015 cringe whataboutism by Amazon-apologists and Bezos-bots : "but whatabout Peter Jackson something something". PJ's changes were mostly necessary and quite minor, ROP is absolute fanfiction.
Not to mention LOTR is masterpiece cinematography vastly superior to ROP at every possible level.
@bdleo300 I didn’t bring up Jackson’s films to say “but what about…!” Someone asked about where in Tolkien’s works something was, I gave a point that *could* potentially lend credence, but I also said that I don’t think that was the case, so then, in my view, it fit the same category as some alterations that Jackson made that aren’t in the book. Things that weren’t there or done that way but added for some other reason. Something that adaptations do quite frequently.
Notably, some of the changes I referenced were also not “necessary.” People love to say Jackson’s changes were necessary and quite minor , despite the fact that such changes involve altering whole characters. Aragorn is very different, wasn’t necessary. Faramir is very different and Frodo never went to Osgiliath, those were not necessary for the change to film. And honestly, same with Treebeard.
But you did come in here essentially accusing me of being an “Amazon apologist and Bezos-bot”, so I’m sure you’ll ignore my actual point. (Bezos is barely involved with the writing and what. And it bothers me peope would rather call it “Amazon’s” and LotR “Jackson’s.” Why not call LotR “New Line Cinema’s” or RoP “McKay & Payne’s”?)
@@davidbeer5015 So now we have people not only redefining canon but make out as well.
Great, thank you for this. So wehre's the rection and analysis for the final episode???
Check out latest episode on other minds and hands for explanation.
@@geir8849 true, but they've had three weeks now and could have released more. That video makes it sound like we're going to be drip fed the connect over the next couple of months which is not great.
I can see why he's possibly thinking of doing it (keep activity and interest in the channel), but I doubt I'll watch reactions a month from now.
@@TomOnTheTube Both Maggie and Corey have said they're not doing reactions to the episodes. They're doing analysis. It's not about getting it out as fast as possible to garner attention. They're being deliberate and careful with analysis.
Thank you for this, Corey. I'm glad you expanded on the topic. I know that you've spoken on this all in prior video discussions, but it's helpful to have it concisely addressed.
I find this whole conversation around canon to be a waste of time. It's a distraction from the real issue. Canon or no canon, Amazon has zero respect for Tolkien's work, his legacy, or his fans. Are we really pretending that having a firm and inflexible canon would stop Amazon (or Netflix) from butchering Tolkien? Has it stopped them from butchering anything else they get their grubby hands on? Tolkien changing his ideas isn't permission for a writer to change them even further.
It's not your sandbox to play in.
I agree that the argument around canon has gotten out of hand. I disagree that they have been butchering things though. In my opinion, while specific plot points have changed, the story itself has been both enjoyable and keeping true to various themes established in Tolkien’s works. Morality/ends and means, light and darkness, how it is not might that wins the day, etc. let alone the situation of faith and politics with Numenor. But that’s just me. I’d personally rather those things stay true instead of a rigid holding to plot point.
The Tolkien Estate approves every single Rings of Power aspect. So, you have to go to them and say "listen, I know you are the greatest Tolkien experts in the entire world, but you are wrong and I'm right!"
Good luck.
I don't understand why people are soooo stuck on the issue of rings of power adhering to the books. Of course, that is critical, but first, I think we have to look at the work individually. If you put the books aside, the whole narrative and story of both seasons don't work, it's just a patchwork, as a standalone series or movie, it's not cohesive. The trilogy didn't follow the books exactly, but the whole thing comes together and makes sense. I think that's more important to consider, just to zoom out of the details of the book and look at the work holistically, then getting to the details and comparison with books.
I’m confused. So are we all happy that ROP went against the most complete and widely beloved version of Gandalfs origin? Sure you can question the word Canon. But that doesn’t change the most well known and most cohesive lore that fits with the LOTR being ignored. It’s still a terrible idea. It will create endless continuity issues with the rest of his time in middle earth.
You know that’s just.. like not what this video is about right?
@@edrik3521 The funny thing is, it IS what this video is about. It's not spelled out surely, but the subtext is STRONG.
@@whatsthere9538 I think you're confusing applicability and meaning.
@@edrik3521cope harder
„That Olórin [Gandalf], as was possible for one of the Maiar, had already visited Middle-earth and had become acquainted not only with the Sindarin Elves and others deeper in Middle-earth, but also with Men, is likely, but nothing is (has yet been) said of this.“ (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Peoples of Middle-earth - Part 2, Chapter XIII, "Last Writings, p.381")
Share this vid everywhere :)
These people ruined lord of the rings. Over half your viewers left for a reason
For the reasons he discussed. It's all opinion. I have loved the Lord of the rings and Tolkien's work since I was in middle school. They inspired me to write. And I have loved the rings of power so far. None of it ruins the Lord of the rings for me. To me, people who complain about the show are shallow minded. Or bigots.
They didn’t “ruin” Lord of the Rings, or anything Tolkien. Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s works still exist the way they always have. Don’t be a baby.
Lots of people in the comments not getting the point.
The words from a liar means nothing. He's cherry picking definition of canon that gets him off.
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri I don't even know if he is 'cherry-picking' a definition, as he did not provide a source,
He could be just making it up.
@@Tar-Elenion He chose the christian definition of the canonicity of the holy work. Where it was not written by one person so a Council was called in Nicaea(First Council of Nicaea) where the most respected christian theologists of that time came together and tried to achieve consensus over the many stories out there at the time, which is the complete opposite of what Tolkien went through. He then goes into other definitions but conveniently neglects the one definition that blows his argument apart. Thats why I know he's lying and being disingenuous, this video removed any benefit of the doubt I had left for him.
687 likes, 822 dislikes in case you were wondering.
Dr. Grima is at it again.
It's actually rather funny how panicked the haters get when anyone dares disagree with them. 🤣
@@jj48 Yes, you Tolkien haters get rather panicky when we disagree with you.
@@attilatoth8581 So now, anyone who likes something you don't is a "Tolkien hater"? 😂
Maybe I should start calling anyone who likes The Crystal Star a "Star Wars hater"! 🤣
@@jj48 You do that.
I'm gonna keep calling everyone a Tolkien hater who defends and celebrates the deliberate destruction and subversion of his work.
As well as the people who blatantly lie about it going as far as to claim that Tolkien never wrote things he did write and that there is no canon anyway.
@@attilatoth8581 No one's celebrating "the deliberate destruction and subversion of his work," though, as that's not even happening. And who's claiming Tolkien never wrote things he did write?
Yes! More people need to hear this.
People confuse their own inability to understand something with a fault in the thing itself. It has to be bad, because I don't get it. And I also don't want to understand it, because that would take effort or - God forbid - an education.
Excellent, Corey. I agree with all of this, except that I would not call Tolkien's use of canon in "canons of narrative art" a tertiary sense. It is, in fact, a lot close to the original meaning, "rule" or "measuring stick," and I wouldn't be surprised if he had that sense precisely in mind when he used that phrase.
Thanks for this.
I personally blame Star Wars. People became used to the concept of "canon" as it was presented by the Star Wars Expanded Universe, with different layers of authority, and when they came to Tolkien they tried to apply the same system to him.
Naturally enough it didn't work because it can't work, but it didn't stop them trying and it doesn't stop them persisting.
You're confusing "canon" and "content".
Tolkien not having an established or agreed upon cannon is no excuse for the absolute brain rot writing in RoP.
Is that what Corey said? 🤔
That's a ridiculous assesment of RoP, it's definitely not bad. Is it perfect? Probbly not, but no adaptation is...
@@freja9398a hobo uses a sword key to turn on a volcano. Later, orcs shoot trebuchets at a mountainside to insta-dam a river.
It. Is. Incredibly. Stupid.
I prefer some writers version of the King Arthur myth to others. Doesn't make one more valid than another. Engage brain perhaps 😂
@@freja9398 Actually, it is the most demented writing I have ever seen in any show.
It's shocking how stupid a lot of it is.
Hear, hear! This necessary foray into Tolkien canon is 25 years overdue. This topic should have been seriously discussed when PJ was working on the the LOTR movie trilogy. Many now view those films as "canon" even though they were severely criticized by Tolkien literary purists when initially aired. RoP is now facing the same issues. Thank you, Corey, for keeping us on track with the CORRECT definition of canon in Tolkien LITERATURE. Adaptations are just that--ADAPTATIONS. If fans are hung up on only hearing Tolkien's own words, READ THE BOOKS! 😄
Cringe Amazon-apologists and Bezos-bots talking about 'the books' while denying that the books (the Hobbit and LOTR) ARE canon.
@@bdleo300 So, it's canon that the printed text isn't authoritative and can't be relied upon?
I just had this exact conversation during a car ride with my partner yesterday and was really lovely explaining it to her. Thank you so much for doing it here and making the point of discourse about being thoughtful and critical not just reactionary.
All true. Of course, none of this changes the fact that Rings of Power is a terribly written show that should be embarrassed to call itself "the Lord of the Rings".
I have to ask, in what "other writings of Tolkien" was Galadriel a 5 foot 2 warrior queen who fancied getting into Saurons pants? ... Rule 34 Middle Earth?
Is there a specific height she had to be. She had to be 5 foot 8 like Cate Blanchett?
@@isaacm2374 Answer the other question about saurons pants
@@JohnSmith-zb7ri Both Sauron and Galadriel are canonically sexy, so it honors the spirit of Tolkien
@@isaacm2374 Yes, there is. She is 6 feet 4 inches (193 cm) to be exact.
@@yamamotolucius9328 I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news…but there are almost no women who are 6’4” on earth, and possibly no 6’4” trained actresses. If you’re 6’4” and female…you’re on a D1 volleyball or basketball team, not in theater. Sauron is supposed to be 8’-9’ tall whereas Charlie Vickers is only 5’11”and you don’t seem upset about that 🤷♀️
I appreciate Dr. Olsen's discussion of "canon", even though I"m not sure it is necessary. Yes, comments were made on the internet, but comments will always be made. I know many that listen to your videos truly enjoy the Rings of Power series. I am not one of those (even though I keep on going), but I listen to Dr. Olsen because I respect his viewpoints. Afterall, he got me through the Silmarillion with his on-line course; two reads to fully understand, and a third read to fully enjoy it (fantastic book). My issue with the series (which is in-line with most of the on-line critics) is it is simply poorly written. Whether it is fully consistent with cannon or lore is secondary, especially when the source material is not a complete narrative to feed off of like the published books. The Show Runners had too many holes to fill and they did not do it well. I was excited when I first heard of the series, but it did not live up to my expectations. Now, I wish it would all have been left alone. We have the movies and published materials. I think there was a reason Christopher Tolkien was trying to end it with his death. We should respect that.