Melon Geek: According to Merriam Webster: In the context of authors, canon means "the authentic works of a writer." This means ANY writing of Tolkien, published by him or by Christopher, are the "authentic works" because the Professor wrote them. Period. It matters not a smidgen whether he was playing with different ideas on the same subject or not. ANYTHING he wrote is canon. Now therefore, whatever he changed in order to publish LotR became the definitive canon since he obviously changed those things, ie., the date of Gandalf's arrival, etc., in order to fit the work being published. When he continued to rework things after publishing LotR, we have to ask, Did Tolkien make official edits to LotR to accommodate these changes? If yes, then we should have that in subsequent editions of LotR. If he did not, and this is the point, then the set canon shown in LotR is still the set canon, the definitive canon. Or as someone else has quoted Tolkien: "The canons of narrative art 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."--- JRRT The fact that Corey Olsen has allowed his words--in context or not--to be used to bolster the credibility of the Rings of Power speaks volumes on his erudition and his "scholarship" regarding Tolkien. I have been a Tolkien dramatic reader since the 1970s, and have studied his works nearly as long. I doubt Olsen has studied them any more than I have. He may have his degree as a prof of literature. I taught English for over 25 years. I can assure you my idea of literary canon is quite standard to my profession. And as you can certainly gather from the reaction of many on UA-cam to the RoP, my understanding of canon is not unique. It is the common sense, logical understanding of the word and its intended meaning. Olsen has allowed his reputation to be used to promote the most deplorable act of literary vandalism we have ever witnessed. Or as the Nerd Cookies lady has said it, it is the bastardization of Tolkien's legendarium. So my dear Geek, while I usually commend you on your scholarly analysis, I cannot agree with you here. But I will not demote you from your position as my favorite Tolkien vlogger, even so. One day you and I will have a LONG conversation about our favorite author. Namarie.
thank you, finally someone who knows the real definition of canon modern fandoms have twisted it to mean that the legal copyright holder can change reality
"The authentic works" does not tell you which Version of events should be canon. What canonically happened to the Blue Wizards? His early writings, or his late writings? Both are "authentic works" of the author, so which is Canon?
@@JainaSoloB312 Everything Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything Tolkien did not write is not canon. Canon is the corpus of Tolkien's work. Different versions are part of that canon.
If everything Tolkien wrote is canon, that includes his later ideas that didn’t get published. Calling what he did publish the “definitive canon” is therefore using the word in a different sense than the one you yourself gave at the outset, because now you’re limiting it to not only the “authentic” writings (which all of them are, whether published or not), but to some subset based on their status. Well, is it because they’re published? Tolkien changed that more than once. Is it because he himself published it and didn’t get it changed in his lifetime? Guess the Silmarillion is out. You simply can’t define things this way without throwing out at least one baby with the bath water.
Sure, Tolkien changed his mind often about a lot of things. But I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than saying that all that Tolkien wrote is canon, whether he published it himself or others did, whether it's contradicting or not. The point is that canon is what Tolkien put to paper, and not anyone else. Maybe there are two or three versions he came up with, but it's his versions - and not those that a random fanfiction writer can up with. To make that distinction - canon is what Tolkien wrote and fanon is what other people wrote or filmed - shouldn't be that controversial. And going through the definition of "canon" in various dictionaries, I don't see that it doesn't fit the definition of canon. As for Gandalf's arrival: there is a difference between Olorin and Gandalf, even if they are the same person. Gandalf is a very specific form with a very specific purpose. Olorin may have been in Middle-earth before, but not in the shape of Gandalf and not with the mission that Gandalf had.
As Olórin he went to Middle Earth with Melian as the leader of the 5 guardians which gave context for her to end up in Nan Elmoth to eventually meet Elwë (Elu Thingol)! ❤❤❤
Do you want Tinfang Warble to be canon? Because this is how you make Tinfang Warble canon. Do you want Danuin, Ranuin, and Fanuin to be canon? Spoiler alert: You do not want Danuin, Ranuin, and Fanuin to be canon. It's not like two to three versions we're talking about here. We're talking about tens of versions. And many of these things we know Tolkien had rejected for ever; and because Tolkien never finalized his later versions, we don't know whether or not he would have rejected any of those things had he had the time to finalize them.
you understand, by saying this it means nothing means anything.. your inferring a writers drafts should be considered canon even though it didn't make it into the finished work..! so its a marvel universe mulit-verse justification.! i do understand why folk are saying similar.. they want to like the show and not feel like they are betraying the author they claim to adore! but the simple is factor is, you are! you want your cake and to eat it. But not all of us can devalue tolkiens published works so easily because we are desperate for content.
Surely, whatever canon is, it can only be something Tolkien actually wrote. The context of the Corey clip is that it is Amazon publicity material. Including the nonsense about "the East" being Mordor. Plainly meant to excuse the introduction of Gandalf to the Second Age story, and to Rhun. In fact UT 'The Istari' includes the intriguing statement "beyond Nurnen Gandalf had never gone", implying he had in fact gone to Mordor. The basis for Gandalf visiting Middle-earth in the Second Age is from Peoples of Middle-earth (HOME 12), 'Glorfindel': "That Olorin, 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 has yet been said of this." In context, he isn't a wizard yet. The essay on the Istari (UT) says the wizards "belonged solely to the Third Age and then departed." Muddied yet again by the Blue Wizards possibly arriving in the Second Age (POME 'The Five wizards').
Might be referring to the concept of the five guardians. From Tolkien Gateway: "After Oromë found the Elves in Cuiviénen, the Valar planned to make War against Melkor. Oromë and Tulkas had dwelt with the Elves for many years, protecting them, so when they left to make war preparations,[1] the Valar put a guard about Cuiviénen to protect the Elves from battle for the following two Valian Years.[2] It was a group of great Maiar to guard the Elves meanwhile. They were Tarindor (later Saruman), Olórin (Gandalf), Hrávandil (Radagast), Palacendo and Haimenar. They were led by Melian, who had travelled to Cuiviénen before the Five Guardians; she was the sixth Maiar guardian and was the only female spirit among them.[1]" Key being that this is not Gandalf, but Olórin.
@@kahinaloren That's very interesting. It's probably worth mentioning (to head off sceptics of whom I might have been one) that this is authentic Tolkien material, first published in Carl F. Hostetter (ed.), The Nature of Middle-earth, 2021.
@@pwmiles56 Thank you. I find Tolkien Gateway rather reliable, and people can look it up if they are interested. Should probably have included the Hostetter reference. I need to get that book myself btw. Currently reading the Fall of Numenor though.
I meant to address the “to the east” line and forgot thanks to not watching the video “live” as it were, and then having some technical issues to boot. I do agree that Olsen’s particular interpretation seems strained, but I also think it’s not impossible to reconcile with something like the ROP story. Gandalf hasn’t been to the East in who knows how long and has no plans to, and maybe that’s what he meant, even if he had briefly been there before. That would contradict the note you mention about Nurnen, but so would his time with the Elves in the first age in Nature of Middle-earth. But as I said, basically ROP is fan fiction with no real basis in ANY text, so the criticism is fair.
A few years ago if this was said I would not have minded as much. But today due to how the likes of Amazon and others just use Tolkien's work and ruin it's story and how it unfolds, replacing it with their terrible characters, events and missing the important details.
Okay but don't you think we should be able to decouple the crappiness of Bezos's show from Corey's statement, since it would be equally true no matter whether RoP ever existed or not? Like imagine if someone proved to me that man-made climate change was real, and then I said, "If you'd told me all this in 1995 I would not have minded as much. But today after decades of smug liberals shaming me for driving a gas-guzzling car and disregarding the importance of fossil fuel consumption to a growing economy, I am going to pretend that those who believe in man-made climate change are wrong, even though all my rational faculties tell me they're right. I'm going to deny what I know to be true because I'm mad at them." This is an important cognitive skill called "decoupling".
@@coreyander286 Can't really compare climate change to a book series. One is real life, the other is based around the portrayal of a beloved Fantasy series. The problem is people who made Rings of power will twist Corey Olsen's words, to try and excuse their terrible writing in the show and why they messed up the second age timeline. But the Thing is there is a Canon in the form of how the final books where published, What happened in the LOTR trilogy of books are canon, so is how the second and first age happened. Some details by Tolkien might be out of place, conflicted with older or newer statements. But the overall storyline and plot progression is the same from Age of the Lamps to the fourth Age.
@@m0-m0597 Of course quite a few of them have suddenly become quite more flexible to what is true to the original writings. The Tolkien estate itself has also begin to accept and allow Tolkien's work to be misinterpreted, altered as well. Ever since Christopher Tolkien passed away. I would dare say this is why more important than ever we need to make sure there is true canon that is kept too. Which should be: Tolkien's published stories first and their books that support them.
I think for a Second Age "adaptation" we have at least the Appendices, and what's scattered in the main text of the LotR as CANON. And in a broader sense, we see everything Tolkien wrote that doesn't contradict the LotR books (or each other) as canon, and we have a lot of those. If not, then canon never existed for any work by any writer that has done any revision after publishing. And you know the show contradicts the Appendices A LOT, and we are NOT talking about Gil-galad's parents here.
@@TolkienLorePodcast What I'm saying is, it's bs to say there's no canon in whatever context. Corey Olsen knew what he had signed up for (not for the first time), and he wasn't wronged. If you are saying this in the video then forgive me for missing the entire point.
Sad to see this guy essentially defend the cringiest “Tolkien” scholar out there. Erik Kaine, JustSomeGuy + EuropeanLore are awesome though! Same with SirBookSage, GeorgeTheGiantSlayer, TheTolkienShirt and many more!
he has been desperate for recognition since he gave himself the title " the tolkien professor".. he was always gonna sell out! He foolish thought he could make money by creating a Tolkien academy.
But he was open-minded enough to quote a feminist because he found her insightful. He quoted Simone de Beauvoir in his BBC interview, and said her quote about death was a perfect encapsulation of the theme of _Lord of the Rings._ And while he was a conservative he recognized that conservatism had its pitfalls. He compared it to the Elves trying to stop the flow of time and the loss of Middle-earth to the Dominion of Men using the Three Rings, calling them "embalmers". See Letter 154. As to darkthorpocomicknight, the only fascists I'm aware of who he supported were the Francoists in the Spanish Civil War. And as far as I can tell, he didn't support the Francoists out of any strong ideological attachments, but rather because the Nationalists were allied with the Catholic Church more than the Republicans were. Had Tolkien lived to see the Salvadoran Civil War, where you had the rightwing government assassinating a Jesuit priest Oscar Romero because the Catholic Church there was often supportive of the leftwing guerillas, maybe Tolkien would've sided with the leftists.
@darkthorpocomicknight7891 in the Spanish Civil War the anarchists and communists were committing brutality to innocent people and Catholics including scalping priests. Sorry but recognizing Franco was the lesser of 2 evil makes sense. Tolkien was right
My man - corey olsen has a regular vlog where he explains, puffs and applauds every episode of this show. He constantly appreciates the deep cut easter eggs - they said the name! They showed the thing! - but ignores basic points like the galadriel of the books was too wise to be fooled by god-like annatar, never mind scrub sauron in homeless human form. The criticism is fair in spirit even if unfairly cut - which I'm too busy to look into. They call it "lord of the rings: the rings of power" - if the second age as described in the lord of the rings appendix b is not canon, we might as well start grunting and banging each other over the head with rocks because language no longer has meaning.
@TolkienLorePodcast sure - just pointing out an endpoint to canon ambiguity -Amazon's own insistence their product IS LOTR, and so by reflexive property, lotr is their canon (and ignoring appendix b is an insurmountable problem) - also emphasized CO would rather talk about the definition of canon than address his own refusal to take a stand on whether the lord of the rings is worth upholding as written and enjoyed for 70 years. So, the criticism he gets generally is well earned. Carry on!
Here's an important skill in life: when someone makes a claim, you analyze and judge that claim on its own merits, isolated from the greater context of the person making the claim. If someone tells you you're damaging your car, you have to consider that they might be right, even if they burnt down an orphanage. You can't just think, _Well he must be wrong about my car, because he burnt down an orphanage._ The orphanage-burner may be correct, there's no contradiction between burning down an orphanage and knowing about cars, and if you assume he must be wrong about the car because of your strong pro-orphanage, anti-fire position, your car might break down. Whether or not Corey Olsen goes too easy on _Rings of Power_ has absolutely nothing to do with the statement that there is no such thing as canon in Tolkien. If he says "There is no canon in Tolkien... therefore the Elrond-Galadriel kiss was perfect", then you can assail him. But you cannot say "the Elrond-Galadriel kiss was terrible, therefore Corey Olsen is wrong about canon, in fact it's divided into official tiers, we have T-canon and C-canon and PJ-canon and LT-canon..."
@@coreyander286 offering a bad analogy to demonstrate your supposed mastery of an important life skill is a strange thing to do. Here, olsen is not talking about two unrelated things - he's talking about Tolkein canon while explaining this supposedly Tolkein show. It's unfair to edit the comment to make him sound ignorant, but it's also unfair to sever the context to make certain objections sound ignorant. So its more like - I've seen the arsonist burn down the orphanage, and I have the surviving orphans in the car driving away, and he is telling me that I need to stop the car because of engine damage, I'm either being dumb or willfully ignorant for taking what he's saying at face value and stop the car to give him access to the rest of the orphans. This analogy isn't quite right to what we're actually talking about either, perhaps I have a few non-orphaned kids in the car to represent the ambiguity of canon. I can't decide whether olsen or the wonder twins are the arsonist. Important skill. I have been very careful to say that this show is literally called lord of the rings, and so those books we have all read and amazon is referring to in their product line must be a baseline for whatever is meant by the word canon. I trust you will go that far with me, that the word holds some kind of meaning. There are some things which are not canon - like contradictory lore notes or biblical apocrypha. There are some things which are - whatever amazon paid 250 million dollars for and the four gospels. How to view the rest in relation to the central text that defines the main story and messege? We can reasonably disagree, so I dont care. I refuse to err on the side of anything goes, and allow that you can slap a Tolkein label on a santa claus elf - or one so mundane you have to check the ears to see what you've got. I am now one of the 12k who watched olsens explanation of what he meant. He does not want to say the published lord of the rings should be a guide for a show called lord of the rings, because that would undermine his position of helping to sell this show that has nothing to do with it. He is the arsonist, distracting us with an argument whether we should bother putting out fires since some fires are too hot to put out while the engine blows up and burns up the rest of the elves. I mean orphans. That's getting closer to homologous.
Regardless of the contradictions that exist in the multiple versions of certain details and stories of the legendarium, Olsens point is moot if it is in direct relation to the Amazon show. I might be able to agree with him in a vaccum. Sure, Tolkien was wanting to change certain aspects of his stories later in life or maybe had written several versions of them over the course of his life. Sometimes he even unintentionally made a discrepancy and then assimilated retroactively it into being part of the cohesive story... like with the Glorfindel who died in the first age defending Gondolin from the Lord of Balrogs being made the same character as the Glorfindel who is in FOTR. The reason discrepancies like this do not matter and do not prove Olsens point imo is because the Amazon show is not really based on any of it. The liberties they are taking are their own and any decision they've made like for example bringing Gandalf into the 2nd Age is not based on trying to reconcile contradictory writings of Tolkien. It is based on name recognition, advertising and trying to make more money for an show that has been failing abysmally since it first came on the air. They know Gandalf is a beloved character from the PJ films and are doing anything and everything to have nostalgia bait to get more viewership. Then they give this deconstructionist 2nd year art film student horseshit of saying "there is no canon bro" to try and rebuke naysayers.
Regarding the Amazon video in which Olsen said 'there is no such thing as canon in Tolkien'. I suggest not falling for the 'it was edited out of context', apologetic. Olsen insisted, by his own admission, that his statement be put in that video. He insisted on it to get a reaction, so he could indulge in a "teaching moment". Olsen: _"I totally did that on purpose. I insisted that statement about there not really being any such thing as Tolkien Canon because Tolkien's ideas were ever evolving."_ OM&H #83 _"I'm like 'There's a serious gap in these arguments and this feels like an important teaching moment'. So when Prime Video approached me to do the Gandalf video I was like 'Well that will get some attention, so why don't I raise it here, and then if I'm very lucky it will be picked up by lots of hater UA-cam sites and then everybody will be talking about Canon'. And lo and behold it happened."_ ibid Olsen had veto rights on it: _"Prime Video very graciously gave me veto rights on that video, when I agreed to do that video with them"_ ibid That is the context. It was not edited to remove context. *It was put in as that at Olsen's request. It was fully intentional* on his part. (And your allusion to his previous 'out of context' claim, i.e. the IGN 'Tolkien never said' video, Olsen made numerous false statements (not just beards) in that video. I can detail them out if you want. And there is no 'context' that will change Olsen statement: *'There is no textual justification for that* [beards] *at all"* to 'there is textual justification for it'. Olsen's 'apologetics' afterwards continued to be disingenuous for months. I can lay this out in detail.) This is what Olsen claims to be the 'defintion' of "canon": _"A Canon is an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon by some group of people whose authority to do so is broadly accepted."_ Rings and Realms, Tolkien and "Canon" What is the source for this definition? Or did Olsen make it up? Here are a series of definitions regarding 'literary' canon: c. the complete works, as of an author Collins Dictionary b: the authentic works of a writer Merriam-Webster all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person Cambridge Dictionary b : the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written Britannica a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the real work of a particular writer Oxford Learner's Dictionary The commonality in these definitions is the body of work of an author. There is nothing about needing a group of people with 'authority' to determine it. Olsen seems to be appealing to an 'authority', that he would consider himself part of. What exactly is this 'authoritative' body supposed to determine? Regarding Gandalf in the Second Age. 1). Listen more carefully to what Olsen said. He worded that very carefully (and disingenuously) to not say that, but just to leave that impression. 2). Tolkien was not toying with the idea. If you think he was, provide the evidence, please. The Canon of Tolkien is what Tolkien wrote. That there are variants or 'contradictions' is not relevant to it being Tolkien's canon. This is one of the problems with Olsen's 'defintion' in that he does not confront that directly and include it (one way or another) in his defintion. re: Arwen's date of birth, what Tolkien wrote was: "If Arwen was born in TA 341 (as a correction)..." This was in the ca 1959 Ageing of Elves (NoMe). It was not for the second edition and, in the event, he did not end up changing it. Tolkien rewriting, revising, contradicting what Tolkien wrote about Tolkien's world, is still Tolkien. Only Tolkien can write Tolkien. Others doing that and claiming it is what Tolkien wrote, said, meant or intended or that "It's not our story, you know, it's Tolkien's" are dishonest. As are self-declared "Tolkien Professors" who say: _"I don't generally care that much what authors say about their books because it's not their's anymore."_ ...while trying to justify others rewriting or changing what Tolkien wrote, by appealing to Tolkien and mischaracterizing what he said.
I'm going to put this here, regarding Olsen's 'Gandalf' comment in the Amazon video (which I will remind any reader, Olsen said he had veto rights over): Olsen: _"That same passage where he talks about his many names he says "To the East, I go not."_ _When we look at that quote in context, he's talking to a dude from Gondor, and the people of Gondor. the call Mordor "the East"._ _He meant: "Don't expect me to go throw down with, you know, the Dark Lord at the gates of Barad-dur.""_ In "That same passage" the "dude" is Faramir. And it is Faramir relating to Frodo and Sam what Gandalf has said to him: "‘Mithrandir we called him in elf-fashion,’ said Faramir, ‘and he was content. Many are my names in many countries, he said. Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Dwarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.’" LotR, Window on the West The self-declared "Tolkien Professor", in defence of A-RoP, claims that it means that Gandalf will not go to Mordor to personally fight Sauron. But lets see what another professor has to say about this. That professor being one Professor Tolkien: "The date of Gandalf’s arrival is uncertain. He came from beyond the Sea, apparently at about the same time as the first signs were noted of the re-arising of ‘the Shadow’: the reappearance and spread of evil things. But he is seldom mentioned in any annals or records during the second millennium of the Third Age. Probably he wandered long (in various guises), engaged not in deeds and events but in exploring the hearts of Elves and Men who had been and might still be expected to be opposed to Sauron. His own statement (or a version of it, and in any case not fully understood) is preserved that his name in youth was Olórin in the West, but he was called Mithrandir by the Elves (Grey Wanderer), Tharkûn by the Dwarves (said to mean ‘Staff-man’), Incánus in the South, and Gandalf in the North, but ‘to the East I go not’. ‘The West’ here plainly means the Far West beyond the Sea, not part of Middle-earth; the name Olórin is of High-Elven form. ‘The North’ must refer to the North-western regions of Middle-earth, in which most of the inhabitants or speaking-peoples were and remained uncorrupted by Morgoth or Sauron. In those regions resistance would be strongest to the evils left behind by the Enemy, or to Sauron his servant, if he should reappear. The bounds of this region were naturally vague; its eastern frontier was roughly the River Carnen to its junction with Celduin (the River Running), and so to Núrnen, and thence south to the ancient confines of South Gondor. (It did not originally exclude Mordor, which was occupied by Sauron, although outside his original realms ‘in the East’, as a deliberate threat to the West and the Númenóreans.) ‘The North’ thus includes all this great area: roughly West to East from the Gulf of Lune to Núrnen, and North and South from Carn Dûm to the southern bounds of ancient Gondor between it and Near Harad. *Beyond Núrnen Gandalf had never gone."* Unfinished Tales, The Istari, a pre- 2nd edition of Lord of the Rings note "It is very unclear what was meant by ‘in the South’. *Gandalf disclaimed ever visiting ‘the East’, but actually he appears to have confined his journeys and guardianship to the western lands, inhabited by Elves and peoples in general hostile to Sauron.* At any rate it seems unlikely that he ever journeyed or stayed long enough in the Harad (or Far Harad!) to have there acquired a special name in any of the alien languages of those little known regions. The South should thus mean Gondor (at its widest those lands under the suzerainty of Gondor at the height of its power). At the time of this Tale, however, we find Gandalf always called Mithrandir in Gondor (by men of rank or Númenórean origin, as Denethor, Faramir, etc.). This is Sindarin, and given as the name used by the Elves; but men of rank in Gondor knew and used this language. The ‘popular’ name in the Westron or Common Speech was evidently one meaning ‘Greymantle’, but having been devised long before was now in an archaic form. This is maybe represented by the Greyhame used by Éomer in Rohan." Unfinished Tales, The Istari, 1967 note Professor Tolkien, contra Corey Olsen, writes that the meaning of "to the East I go not" is literal. Gandalf did not go in to Rhun. *'Do you want to be true to what you think Tolkien was imagining...OR, do you want to be true to what Tolkien said about the world'*
I'm confused, even by Olsen's definition of 'canon', don't we have "an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon", etc. etc.? Thanks for the comment btw, I thought I had to endure Olsen's video again, I don't have to now.
@@eugene8498 Olsen says is it has to be determined by some sort of authoratative group. He is being disingenuous. He should clearly and precisely state what exactly this group with authority is supposed to consist of. And what exactly and precisely this group with authority is supposed to determine about Tolkien's writings. What he seems to be doing is combining 'definitions' for a 'religious' canon and for a *broad* literary canon (e.g. what is considered to be in the canon of English literature), to make up his own definition. And then he is applying it to a literary canon for a writer (i.e. the corpus of an individual author).
@@eugene8498 I don't know why he invented that definition. I suspect it is because he considers himself to be an 'authority' that would be in on 'determining' the 'canon' for Tolkien. But his statement that 'To the East, I go not', means that Gandalf will not go to Barad-dur and engage in physical combat with Sauron is definitely made up. Tolkien explicitly says what is means. Of course Olsen has stated that he does not care what authors say about their works: _"I don't generally care that much what authors say about their books because it's not their's anymore. They've published it, it's now standing on its own and now we get to interact with it and I have as much right to look at it and tell you what it is saying than the author."_ OM&H #83
I want to say some discrepancies have been found, but off hand I don’t recall if those were publishers errors, inconsistencies between text and maps, or what. I feel fairly certain Fonstad found that Tolkien’s description of some geographical item and the map in LOTR, but I think that might have been due to a mistake by Christopher (who did most of the map drawing). So short answer is, there are some but I’m not sure how pertinent they are.
This situation can reasonably be compared to early Christian schisms. There were a lot of divisions created over petty things. However, where RoP would fall in that analogy would be some kind of gnostic wackery that no one knows about anymore because it was so nutty it died with its originator.
I quite disagree regarding context of his words and definition of canon. JRR and Christopher Tolkien created a canon, it just isn't one where everything is neatly defined with no unclarities and no grey areas. Deeper canon includes those fluid ideas such as the uncertainty of the origin of Orcs. For simplicity's sake, we can say all the parts the two wrote and did not later explicitly correct are regular canon. Deeper canon would be including all the discussions and things he has never made up his mind as well as previous versions, basically everything JRR and Christopher ever wrote about without finality. Context is important because the "there is no canon" statements were made to support a show that is violating even the mushiest type of canon. Amazon:tToP is intentionally changing things Tolkien made quite clear and generally doesn't show any respect or love for the works of Tolkien. It tries to subvert both the canon and the spirit of Tolkien's work. It therefore isn't even fan fiction. Unlike the Peter Jackson trilogy of movies, it doesn't just change things in order to transport literature into cinema (and I'm already unhappy with how he changed some characters). Canon indeed comes with various definitions and sub categories. In the common tongue, it is how we and also you used it. There are very hard canons and more soft canons. Literature studies itself is a huge field with completely contradictory points of viewing literature. I don't know about Olson but I can say from university experience that sadly, the deconstruction and postmodern ("death of the author") view points have become one of the most common. PS: Sorry if my point isn't very articulate today but I'm on strong pain killers, which cloud my mind a bit.
Arguably, the chain of Tolkien's canon could be summed up as the published works first, the works he intended to publish such as the Silmarillion next, his letters that revealed his thoughts on his works during his lifetime, the posthumously published works that at the very least show ideas he once considered, and last of all Christopher's and later authors compiling or writing about Tolkien's work. No disrespect to Christopher, but he was interpreting the collection of his father's writing without the ability to truly confirm his father's intent on subjects following his passing. Olsen bringing up the uncertainty of material published posthumously (as he appears to be using it in defense of the show) does not excuse the outright disregard for Tolkien's narrative that RoP shows.
I get what Cory Olsen was saying, but I don’t think this can be used as an excuse to ignore legitimate criticism of the Rings of Power. It’s true that Tolkien kept adapting his story (kinda similar to how George Lucas kept coming out with different edits of Star Wars) except Tolkien’s changes were mainly about the background and lore not main character storylines (with rare exceptions, like Gollum’s ring in the Hobbit becoming the One Ring). So, Tolkien liked to keep exploring and refining ideas, but he also wanted his story to be consistent. It bothered him when people pointed out errors in his book (i.e. Gimli in the Two Towers making a comment about not using his Axe since Moria, forgetting about Amon Hen). He went over his work meticulously to make sure it was consistent, even going so far as to make the phases of the moon reflect our real calendar. The goal with Tolkien’s changes was to make a better story. Changing a story and making it worse or just not as great isn’t the same thing as changes that enhance the story. No ill will towards the actors (they have no real say into what direction the story goes). The directors and producers have the final say and the blame is solely on them. I don’t have a problem with people who enjoyed Rings of Power. You’re free to enjoy what you want, but when I’m told that I’m a terrible person for not enjoying it…it’s frustrating. Sure, don’t harass the actors, but don’t make excuses for the show runners and the billion dollar corporations who just want your money, and don’t care about the stories we love.
Technically, I immediately understood what Olsen was saying and in the grammatical sense you are correct. However, your analysis undermines the context of Olsen' s statement and gives him a free pass. Olsen said it in the context of the Rings of Power, it was an interview for the Rings of Power. What Olsen said was to defend the Rings of Power. He may not have endorsed the precise editing ("Grand Elf etc) but he knew precisely the forum in which he expressed himself (a Rings of Power derivative product for me is this kind of show) and the point is clear. He is technically correct BUT he is disingenuous. When people say "oh what does he say, there is canon" means precisely what you said : "there is no Tolkien version that could be the Rings of Power". In common parlance, precise wording and context are often interwinrd. It may not be technically correct to deny Olsen's claim grammaticaly but it is correct in denying Olsen's contextual meaning: you are defending Rings of Power by being disingenuous.
I don’t think he’s being disingenuous. As I point out in the video I think he just enjoys things I (and others) don’t enjoy. There’s nothing wrong with fan fiction per se. I just don’t like it. Adaptations contradict source material all the time, and it’s really personal preference as to whether you or anyone else is ok with that, and to what degree.
To my mind, the idea that there is no Canon of Tolkien's work does not make sense. We have Tolkien wrote (and I will also include such contributions as Christopher made due to his incredibly involved role in his father's writings, dating as far back as Christopher's childhood). How can these not be Canon? Now, assembling them into a coherent whole is another matter given the Professor's love of changing his mind to rewrite things and never propagating all the relevant changes everywhere they needed or at times leaving an idea so incomplete that it really doesn't fit with his other writings. One can end up admiring a tiny gem of a part of a story and realize it has no place in the larger Legendarium. But the matter of Mr. Olsen is quite different. He has had a role with Amazon around the Rings of Power of show for some time and they certainly used that initial clip as an attempt to justify what they had done on the grounds that they had a bona-fide Tolkien authority to support their take. There is no way he did not understand their objective when he sat down to make that first clip. But it is the 2nd video that I find particularly damning. He talks about many of the issues that you discussed and how Tolkien frequently changed things. But in about the last 2.5 minutes he then proceeds to justify what the makers of the show did as simply their "head canon" and therefore quite acceptable in an adaptation even when the "head canon" is simply their own creation and is one that does not fit with any of the versions written by Tolkien.
If you want to say everything he wrote is canon, you have to deal with contradictions galore. The point is that there was never a final version of the whole story from Ainulindale to Sauron’s fall. Even the Ainulindale was up for revision multiple times. I agree about the show being fan fiction as I said in my video. That doesn’t make what Olsen said wrong though. And frankly any show in the second age would have at least some fan fiction because he just didn’t put in enough detail for a full adaptation.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Does your definition of 'canon' include something about 'contradictions'? Can you provide a precise definition of what you mean by 'canon'?
@@TolkienLorePodcast guy below is right. Contradictory statements don’t render something as not canon lmao. That’d be ridiculous. One could simply get around this by picking a coherent narrative from the things Tolkien himself ACTUALLY WROTE and sticking with that (literally what his own son did when publishing silmarillion). Hacks making it up as they go is not the same as Tolkien changing HIS story to suit HIS needs. This isn’t complicated stuff here.
@@Tar-Elenion Thank you for the additional information. I have now read your other posts farther down in the Comments section. If anything, it just makes Olsen's behavior in this matter even worse.
When I look at something made to represent Tolkien I find it pretty easy to know if it is any good simply by the feel. Does it feel wrong? Unfortunately the answer is almost always yes. For a long time people said it would be impossible to put LOTR into film and I still believe this to be true, but Jacksons films felt right enough for most people to consider them an entertaining addition. Unfortunately ROP does not feel right, and most people without an agenda will agree. The funny thing is if ROP had been named something else and just taken as fantasy series with themes from Tolkien, I could probably have watched it without getting the feeling that things were wrong.
Amazon waited until Christopher Tolkien died early in the production of its DumpsterFire (before they went against what they promised), his "demand" was that Amazon could use the Appendices to make the show, but they couldn't change the lore. As soon as Christopher died, Amazon delayed the show for reshoots, fired Tom Shippey who was the lead Tolkien scholar & friend of Tolkien himself; they wanted Jackson on the team. PeterJackson asked for the scripts then they ghosted him. Then later when asked about it he basically told them good luck.. You can blame this garbage show on Simon Tolkien (who Amazon used to get around all the laws and protections set around the estate and JRR Tolkien’s legacy), its stink doesn't reach Christopher. Firstly: they merge events (from thousands of years of history & build up towards several events but puts them all into one moment as if it’s happening in the same few years without time jumps or anything.) Guyladriel the murderous one dimensional girlboss heroine version of Galadriel never met Miriel(one of Aragorn’s ancestors) because, as an elf, she would have been sacrificed to Morgoth by the King's Men. The hobbits and Gandalf never met in the 2nd Age because Gandalf was in Valinor till the 3rd Age. Miriel wasn’t even born yet. She was born 2000 years before the rings of power era. A precursor to other events to come in later ages. Also Elendil would never say “forget the past and toss it aside.” That’s the whole thing about the Faithful Númenoreans!!! Faithfulness to what’s good. To their elf friends. To the Valar, to Eru Îlluvatar(The One AllFather), The way Galadriel acts like Fëanor when he isn’t seeing straight such as how she threatened bloodshed in the highest court of Númenor! The way she isn’t tall, the way she fights rookies doesn’t make her look strong. Should have had her spar with Elendil who was greater than Miriel in many ways even as far as lineage goes too! (Canon has her as a grandson or son so…) Have her spar with those greater Numenoreans and let the rookies laugh at their masters being vested by an elf woman holding back from actually hurting them! Now that’d be cool. (Remember. Their whole mantra was to write the book Tolkien never wrote”. Also watch them fake super fans. And then watch their social media that had nothing Tolkien on it ever. Like…. It’s painfully obvious what’s going on here. Same formula towards other titles. They’re just trying to bank on the brand of which that’s the only reason they did this. Just watch Peter Jackson’s new movie coming out and the War of the Rohirim. You’ll see that Brian Cox is involved In it along with Philipa Boyens as well as Actor for Èowyn named Miranda Otto. Fran Walsh I also believe is Involved as well! Watch George The Giant Slayer’s first video regarding the war of the rohirrim. It was beautiful. And he has a wonderful soul too. When I say first video. I don’t mean very first uploaded video though lol. ) There was also no Adar. No poppy. No Nori. No fake Gandalf who literally didn’t come the way he was supposed to which introduces Círdan. And since they screwed up the themes and lore so badly they have to dig in their heels. & they are also being sued by multiple people and groups and companies actually. The 3 rings were forged after the 1 ring, not first. They were not in his sights or touch nor did he even know about them. And also guyladriel wasn’t a murderous Fëanorean either. But the note of the elven rings: They were made last and without the knowledge of Sauron. His touch never got to them, nor his malice poured into them. Made in secret so that whole story is thrown out the window as well. And making them first and having the obvious Sauron figure who wasn’t an elf to just be there when they’re making them and have his eye show up in the forge which wasn’t even the worst of it. The greatest of elven smiths still around which is Celebrimbor doesn’t even know what alloying is. Not to mention all their environmental scandals on top of bad CGI stuff. Full of copy past crowds (I wish I was joking), and plagiarism of several films up the wazoo. It’s also getting sued by several people and groups. So many 1 to 1 shots of season 1 and game of thrones and other films that it’s not even funny anymore lol. I’ll also remind you that they just ran an old sick horse til it died of cardiac arrest and then only had a ten min coffee break to loosely honour this horse. Not to mention Tolkien loved animals in a deep way. They also have been causing environmental damage one of which being King Charles ancient forest to make a set. It’s scandal after scandal. And the fire in studio that took four hours to put out with firemen for yet another example. (Note; Isildur being on this show in the timeline these hazily depicted events would mean Isildur is over 3000 years old by the time of the last alliance that began the third age when it ended. Lol. That doesn’t make sense now does it?). So many people made videos over the last two or three years alone regarding the series got them to read the books and then they got very confused first. Then upset when they found out that nothing of the show was I. The books at all. Only twisted and warped things full of inserted politics and themes that Tolkien was no fan of. PS they don’t have the rights to the Silmarillion nor anything much of the second age let alone the first. Only the trilogy books and their appendices…. Remember that they also plagiarized tonnes of films in nontasteful instead of true a homage way… “tempest in me” but when threatening Fëanorean level bloodshed in the court of Númenor was from Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth role which was done with grace and poise of a veteran actress(which doesn’t even sound like anything those of the great chill house of Finarfin would even act like. Again it’d be best to put Elrond there due to Elros. But ooook let’s make girlboss do everything. Even if it continues to make zero sense. 😍 fact they downplayed Elendil who’d never say to “forget the past”, Gil-Galad and Finrod is beyond infuriating and not explaining Elwing, Elronds mother beyond just showing her as a swan was pure LOLism. Like. What’s worse is Grandpabimbor…. Let’s not forget good ol’ Guyladriel either. The LOTR version of Star Wars’ Rey! Guyladriel the Female Fëanor without any of his charms and subtleties and wit… just the bloody violent rages… They lost alot of viewers after their bait and switch behaviour. Hundreds reported shenanigans on their app where it’d force you to watch and episode twice in variously described circumstances. Bribed people left and right with things like that screening. Even the official critics fell asleep. Many longtime film analysts along with actors and film students/professionals give basic criticism and in depth look at the editing and so forth which causes it to fall flat on its face. Abandons plot left and right. Full of member berries. Just because we got fake Tom Bombadil doesn’t mean we’ll flip onto our backs to play with the jingling keys. Balrog wasn’t awoken until thousands of years later. They’re horridly depicted scenarios which often aren’t canon: were separated by hundreds of years. Some of them by thousands. Not cool. Amazon is known to be corrupt.
It feels like your criticism often touches more on the "politics" of the situation rather than the actual grave thematic deviations taken by Amazon. The use of "Guyladriel" and the comparison to Rey shows me that your criticisms often stem from a Critical Drinker adjacent viewpoint(blaming the sociopolitical landscape rather than the modern capitalist landscape which viewed Tolkien's work as ip to compete with other major fantasy shows, not as a second world with it's own rich culture, history, and nature that exists within the mindscape of imagination), because the inarguable truth is that Galadriel from the show is more archetypal feminine than the actual book character. For starters the character is over a foot shorter at 5'3, less powerful, and less confident in Arda and it's people. The problem is not that Galadriel knows how to use swords in the shows(It's not the biggest stretch to believe that Galadriel would most likely have some grasp of swordsmanship on at least a novice level, even if she would eschew any use of weapons), the problem is that she became more of a Eowyn archetype, a woman having to desperately prove her strength in a world of men. The actress chosen for Galadriel even looks like an illustration I found of Eowyn, and the entire thing feels like the writers and executives believing that women television viewers would react better to a woman being forced to prove herself both physically and mentally in a patriarchal society, rather than a wise women whom is fully assured in herself and in people. I understand why they made this choice, the same reason why Aragorn became a self doubting ranger who needs to believe in himself and realize his true position as a king rather than the Arthurian styled true and king who knows his purpose as in the book. However, unlike Aragorn, it feels like the crux of Galadriel was lost in translation, and in all purposes feel like a different character completely, as shown by her being fooled by Sauron not just once but twice. However, I do agree with the glaring lore changes that were not for streamlining for the medium of television, but as a way for mindlessly attempting to garner nostalgia for Lord of the Rings, which utterly makes no sense. It feels like even Jackson, let alone Amazon, do not realize that LOTR is not the be all and end all in the world. LOTR is not what the history of middle earth is building up to, it is just another piece of history in Arda, and history will continue after the events of the story ends. The prevailing problem is that the executives wanted to have a Seasons 1-4 Game of Thrones level series while also having a strong female warrior at the helm. It's not the first time people used the legendarium to tell a unique story that is also 100% against Tolkien's writings, with the major one being the Middle Earth: Shadow series. Celebrimbor is turned into Feanor basically and is given a family to give him motive to be a against Sauron, which he did not need in the actual Legendarium. Celebrimbor also made the one ring himself, not Sauron. The main character, Talion, is a Gondorian ranger who is rejected from death and then bonds with Celebrimbor's wraith, something literally impossible. Talion was also leading Gondor in defending the black gates of Mordor, despite the story taking place in between The Hobbit and LOTR. Those are the less egregious changes, and yet despite this skewering of Tolkien's Legendarium, it is still positively seen due to it's gameplay and the characterization of the Orcs being reflected within the gameplay, which is the inarguable heart of the game. Ring's of power's problem is not that they fundamentally altered the world of Tolkien, it's that they did not have anything of their own merit to gift the audience in exchange. The overall presentation is bland, and either feels like nostalgia bait for both the books and Jackson's interpretation of the Legendarium while jarringly simultaneously trying to create a wholly unique version of Middle Earth different from both Tolkien's and even Jackson's Arda that will be remembered by the masses not familiar with the greater Legendarium. It is in this in which the series fails, not in making Galadriel a supposed "girlboss", but in removing all believable authoritativeness and wisdom from the character, and shows a lack in belief in both Tolkien's story and their own.
I don’t mind the show doing freedom of interpretation, but moreso that it misses the points that make the stories appealing. There was some interesting things happening the very first episodes and sadly they quickly went for a weird accelerated action route. They needed to make something a bit more deep, take their time, and take some risk to do something different. I feel the sopranos had some episodes whose whole purpose was to set a character’s motivations or mental state, and when reading fellowship, we really get a feeling of who Sam is through all the stories in the travels, so the payoff at the end is worth it. This show misses that a lot.
The issue with RoP is that the team making it is absolutely, hopelessly green and too inexperienced to deal with a project like this. None of them has written a script or screenplay so not only can't they write something that would work, they don't even have anyone around them telling them when they're writing nonsense because everyone is just as clueless. I don't expect the future seasons (if they will come to be) to be any better than the first two,probably the opposite will be true. They have made a foundation out of sand and now they're trying to build on top of it. Even a skilled writer would have a hard time fixing a show after two seasons of utter nonsense, the people that made the nonsense to begin with definitely can't
9:37 You just confirmed everything that he is saying in defense of the show is wrong. His argument is against head canon. Most writers revise things. But not to the point where a valid argument is that there is no base lore or canon to go by.
So is it canon that Bandobras Took invented golf? Is it canon when the Appendices say the only Elves to have golden hair are the house of Finarfin, even though this was clearly intended to mean the only Noldor to have golden hair are the house of Finarfin, since obviously the Vanyar also have it, and even on top of all of that Glorfindel is golden-haired and there's no indication he's descended from Finarfin? Is the Song of Earendil canon even though the published version was probably a mistake and Tolkien had intended another version of it to be used in that Rivendell chapter?
If Tolkien himself never wrote any other versions, then in my opinion that's canon. Rings of Power has Sauron dying a death OTHER than the death in Numenor and on the slopes of Mount Doom. I know what canon is when I see it, and Sauron dying two deaths in all his millennia of existence before the War of the Ring is canon. At no time is coming back from the death of his fana anything easy and instantaneous for Sauron as shown to be in RoP. Also this death occurs before the forging of the One. We know of no other instance of a maia dying violently and against his/her will having their fana body destroyed functionally, so we don't know if Sauron is a special case because of the One, ie able to self-resurrect when other maia can't, but it sure does seem like the answer is they can't, as no balrogs ever did as far as we know....I include this second consideration (was Sauron a special case?) just to point out how stupidly complicating and honestly simply not fitting canon adding another death for Sauron is. If I had known nothing else about the RoP series except that they were going to do that, I would have shunned the series based on that datum alone.
It's also clear what is NOT canon, such as Gandalf arriving in Middle Earth alone in a fireball, and he had amnesia when he arrived. It's clear that when he arrived with the others, his appearance was that of an old man....not someone who looked younger.
Mate changing something, doesnt account as Canon. Nobody would know about the changes. Only the end product counts. We know about his changes because of his son, and all the work he produced past Tolkiens death. Do you realise a text goes through various stages before you feel comfortable publishing the end product? Even me writing this, I deleted and reedited the text multiple times. That doesnt mean there are different versions of a single thought I produced. Unless the Professor specifically mentions something, two versions of this, thats ow you interpret that. That is not canon. Some stuff we werent meant to see. Obviously is a blessing having all the notes and scribles of Tolkien and all the thoughts and ideas he had during his time of writing, but again the end published material is what constitutes as canon.
You are being contradictory. J.R.R. Tolkien published two works related to Middle Earth, the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. If only material published by the original author is canon, then Silmarillion is non-canon. Cristopher Tolkien published Silmarillion along with a whole host of works based on manuscripts, notes and scribbling written by J.R.R., so if everything published before and after the death of the author is canon, then the scribblings and notes and all the little things he wanted to be different are also canon. Everyone agrees that Hobbit and LotR are canon, neither this video nor anything or anyone else disoutes this. The issue is deciding which parts of the works finished and published by Christopher are canon
@@exantiuse497 Honestly Christopher and his dad mind as well be the same person though. Using a technicality here is disingenuous on your part; Christopher had been working on reconciling the entirety of the Legendarium (first with his father and then by himself) for nearly 30 years by the time the Silmarillion was published in 1975. They even had the same position at Oxford.
This was a very good video. You said some really valuable things, especially about how we should chill out and be more careful about criticizing each other. It helps that you mention that Corey Olsen is just such a positive guy and all. I certainly am one who is tempted to criticize him severely, even from the start I didn't disagree with him about his basic point that there is not any agreed upon standard for what people might regard as Tolkien Cannon. What really bothered me about the Olsen interview was that it seemed his point was being used as a way to justify things like having the Stranger be Gandalf. Now you've pointed out a way that he could be "Gandalf", and I need to think about that. But up until now I've maintained that Olórin may very well have visited Middle-earth a number of times before he arrived embodied in a physical human form by ship in the Third Age, BUT before that he would not have been the wizard "Gandalf" and he would not have had a physical human body. Travel back and forth between Aman and Middle-earth is relatively easy if you are basically an immaterial Angelic Spirt. But you point out that nothing in the "lore" actually rules out that he could have become incarnate in the Second Age and then physically travelled back and forth: still to me highly unlikely but as you indicate, impossible to definitely rule out. So, thank you for shedding light on this for me. But it still irks me we could have had the Stranger be a Blue Wizard, something a lot of people, perhaps even casual fans might have enjoyed I think.
how is RoP not cannon - 1. it breaks the timeline - not only that of the 2nd Age but heavily also that of the 3rd Age - things cannot happen when they should in the 3rd Age - e.g. Elrond's children cannot be born when they should according to Tolkien's official timeline early in the 3rd Age as their mother - if not born yet in RoP - would be far too young to bear them when she should. Tolkien tinkered with his timeline making Elldadan and Elrohir be born slightly later then originally, but still they have have to be born soon into the 3rd Age. As elves do not bear children in times of war the window of "peaceful times" at the beginning of the 3rd Age is too short to allow both Celebrian and her children be born and grow up at the basically very same time.(also this would make Celebrian functionally a teen bride, basically the same generation as her own children). 2. it would be impossible for Gandalf to trust Saruman, as he would have been already faced with on of the five Istari having betrayed their mission. He would be far more weary. 3. Galadriel would no let a simple hobbit leave her realm to face off Sauron alone. She would be the leader of that party. 4. There is no valid way in RoP for Ar-Pharazon to attack Aman by an armada if there is gate in the sky that has to open for a ship to let it in.
That was a nice argument, Tolkien Lore. But have you considered that, because Corey has defended _Rings of Power,_ I am emotionally obligated to pretend Corey was wrong about canon even though you have thoroughly demonstrated he was right?
The definition Olsen gave: _"A Canon is an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon by some group of people whose authority to do so is broadly accepted."_ What is the source for this definition? Or did Olsen make it up? And Olsen defending or liking A-RoP is not particularly relevant. What he falsely claims Tolkien did or did not say or when he mischaracterizes what Tolkien wrote is relevant. He does that repeatedly in his apologetics for A-RoP. And he does that outside of his A-RoP apologetics as well.
I bet somewhere in Prof Olsen’s back catalogue you could find pretty much the same definitions and arguments put forth as he had now. And it would be an interesting standalone discussion about Tolkien’s works. But that would be before RoP, when less people ‘cared’.
"Canon", for me, is everything that the author has written. Whether it was published before or after his death, it does not matter. Also the fact that there are different version of a storyline and/or character, it's not a problem. I consider that to be part of his work. However, the fact that Tolkien was "toying" with this or that idea, does not mean that somebody else has the right to "toy" with his ideas, change or add some more. That, for me, it is NOT acceptable, and I do not consider as an adaptation of Tolkien's work. That, at best, is a new fiction "inspired" by.... You can choose to adapt whatever "version" that Tolkien wrote about any given character, and/or event. I have no problem with that. But in that case, two thing need to happen; a. Tell the audience on what book/work of Tolkien the story you are adapting is taken from; b) You stick to what the author has already written. Tolkien is dead know, and this is what we have. We should preserve it, not play around with it like it is free for all. Corey Olsen knows very well why a good portion of the fandom are unhappy (to put it mildly) with ROP. He is just playing with words in order to justify the Amazon garbage. You may consider him an "optimist", I consider him an Amazon asslicker.
The argument about Tolkien changing his mind about something is moot, because then nothing would be certain, sicne *technically* Tolkien could change his mind about it. So no. One can argue about topics that we know off that Tolkien experimented with different ideas etc., but the last chronologically last thing Tolkien wrote about a subject has to be understood as being how he wanted it. Since otherwise stuff like Steampunk Numenor would be on the table again.
Tolkien's work is his work. The more literal the adaptation, the better. The true artist can master cinematography, direction, production, special effects in Tolien's world. The words, themes, stories are already there. To change those is the ego.
@@Lothiril It does have to add in new stuff, though. (Imagine a War of Wrath adaptation that literally only included the scanty stuff covered in that half of a chapter, even though we would obviously wonder what a lot of characters who weren't mentioned were doing over the course of it.) And any time you add in new stuff, someone is going to think it was not sufficiently Tolkienesque enough.
Lets just put Tolkien aside for a moment and consider 'canon' in literature. It is considered and accepted to be what the author published or wrote, I'd accept a close editing by a second party and good translations (which always paraphrase) ... think of how many printings of the Iliad/Odyssey there are, both in verse and prose, long after the authors death. There is no 'official' authority that licenses printing of most authors once they're dead or after the publishing house contract runs out. So anyone can then in most cases effectively publish anything based on their 'interpretation' of the authors works. Describing that 'interpretation' as 'canon' would be to intentionally mis-use the meaning of the word based on the first premise, that it is only the work published or written by the author. It is merely semantics to thus interpolate that as 'there is no such thing as canon'. In this case, regarding Gary Olsen, whether you personally take that as lazy phrasing, editing with bad intent or intentional bending of the meaning for personal gain is up to the viewers' interpretation. Getting back to the Tolkien family ... I doubt that Christopher would have let this happen; but JRR's dead, Christopher's dead and the Estate probably desires an income ... sad but true. Personally I think JRR would have been okay with his work still making an income for his grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren ... although I'll never watch RoP.
I hate how fandoms have come to focus so much on canon. Fandoms of all types argue over it religiously and it makes me cringe. Works should be able to stand on their own regardless of their canon status. RoP as an adaptation fails in a lot of ways, but probably wouldn't get as much hate as it does if it was just a good show regardless of its faithfulness to the source material.
Those writers can't even write a story that matches up with itself. --------------- And that's my biggest complaint, as I have been saying since before S1 - when everyone was all mad seeing Galadriel in armour - I don't mind changes, as long as the story is good. But sadly the RoP turned out to be an incoherent mess. I am still open minded to the War of Rohirrim though.
You can make the point that there is no firm Tolkien canon. Obviously the published Hobbit and LotR, appendices included, are absolutely canon. The Silmarillion is pretty firmly canon. Anything else collected by Christopher is more or less deleted scenes/production material. Thing is it's very easy to tell what ISN'T canon. And fan fiction and fan filmed productions definitely aren't. Whether it's a college kid writing Aragorn x Legolas erotica, or fans filming a Hunt For Gollum fan film, or a streaming service making a multimillion dollar series, or even Peter Jackson throwing Aragorn over a cliff or turning Faramir into a douche.
Tolkien Geek, it was a dumb thing for Olsen to say, even in context. There absolutely is a recognized corpus of work that is broadly considered canonical in Tolkien. And you even tacitly acknowledged this for how angry you got at the Amazon show’s lore-rape in S1 when it led you to quit watching altogether. I mean why’d you get upset? It’s because you intuitively knew that they were knowingly changing Tolkien’s work to suit their own agenda. Period. *Note: “youtube is hiding comments and if people want to read the full comments, you may need to sort the comment section by 'Newest First'”
@@TolkienLorePodcast yes but what Olsen was really implying by his statement is that Amazon’s changes, no matter how ridiculous, are actually all legitimate because Tolkien only published the LOTR in his lifetime and therefore no firm “canon” was established. I find this argument utterly ridiculous as CLEARLY the major themes and motives of Tolkien’s story remained consistent throughout his time writing about the world of Arda and middle earth. What was the purpose of Tom Shippey on the show if not to fact check their ridiculous decisions against what amounted to clear and decisive changes to the recognized lore? Call it canon, call it lore, to me it’s merely a technicality to attempt to explain away the fact that the show deviated from anything remotely approaching Tolkein’s vision for his own work (as you right note starting around the ten minute mark). Lastly, there clearly was enough of a thread to form a cohesive narrative that one could reasonably consider “canonical” by the mere fact that Christopher was able to publish a version of the silmarillion with a clear, distinct, linear narrative and fairly obvious themes. One may quibble about character’s motives, Tolkein’s intentions for their “final” timelines in the chronology of the story, etc. But that’s wholly different from changing character’s races, deleting them from stories and transplanting them to places they never went, so on and so forth. And what Olsen implied by that statement was that the viewer need not to be worried by Amazon’s changes because Tolkien “technically had no canon anyway”. This is so obviously wrong and slanted on his part.. I like his work too but olsen’s just dead wrong on this.
@@TolkienLorePodcast because it’s in service of bringing legitimacy to a show that is (rightfully) being trashed by fans for its inauthenticity. You and him obviously disagree about the quality of the show. You quit watching after S1 due in large part to its extreme deviation from recognized lore. You take Jackson to task over mere personality changes to characters but then want to give this abomination of a show the benefit of the doubt regarding their adherence to what is considered canonical Tolkien, I suppose to not seem too biased one way or another. And you do it in large part by quibbling over the meaning of the word “canon” when the knowledgeable ones here have already told you that “canon” simply means all the works of an author. Given that that is the definition of canon, as such, Tolkien DOES have an established canonicity and Olsen is wrong. That’s all we are saying.
He said regarding a particular change, though, which actually is something Tolkien toyed with. And that’s why Olsen’s statement is correct, at least as a response to the criticisms of the show as violating “canon.” Tolkien held open the possibility of Gandalf (Olorin) in Middle-earth before the Third Age, and the Appendices don’t even contradict this. UT contradicts him going “East” but even there that means not past Nurnen. And I’m not giving the benefit of the doubt to the show or trying to look unbiased, I’m just pointing out what I think are objective facts and that we need to be careful in our language.
This site is not letting me post my responses to your specific quotes, possibly because it was too long. In short: the canon is locked in because both J.R.R. and his appointed literary executor are both dead and it therefore can't change anymore. Not to mention whatever version is published becomes the canon, right up until a new version gets published. We have understood what "canon" was since the days of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writings. It's disturbing hearing a lawyer talking about "there's room in what wasn't specified" when conviction happens based on evidence of WHAT DID. If you're a defence lawyer, good for you. But if you're looking for conviction based on evidence - or for that matter, an investigator who cares about the evidence - you are terrifying in using this as a line of argument. And you're telling others to eat humble pie and take a chill pill? It's almost been fun, but your next subscriber is going to have to take my place.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Well if this site had let me post the line-by-line quotes, you'd see otherwise. I copy-pasted your entire transcript, and then spent ages manually cleaning it up in order to respond to your very words. If you insist, I can try splitting it up into sections and posting them. I kept a draft just in case. What's your basis for your response?
You seem to be under the impression that I think anything goes as long as nothing is explicitly said about it. That is not my point at all, and I specifically say that there is still plenty of room to criticize ROP.
@@TolkienLorePodcast That's the impression that your wording gives. YES you made your disapproval of RoP clearer later. Great. Fine. The major thrust of your argument appeared as not a defence of RoP, but a multi-track defence of Corey Olsen. I've got all that clear and I had it clear as I was reading through your video transcript. So NOW, let's consider a few other things: 1) is he not being paid by Amazon? 2) he's been Amazon video-edited BEFORE so he should be fully aware of what they'll do, including the hypothetical distortion of his message. 3) is he not saying similar things in his longer-form videos on channels HE CONTROLS? 4) as a supposed educator, why is he not speaking in a specific educational TERM-INTRODUCING manner? A scientist has to take into account that the scientific-versus-popular definitions of the word "theory". Scientists call the study around gravity a "theory" because of the specific usage and definitions of the term; nobody in their right minds is going to argue against "gravity" though and our physics, industry, technology DEPEND on our understanding of the function and reliability of gravity. So at this point Olsen should be VIVIDLY aware of the danger of introducing new definitions of "canon". With Star Wars and Sherlock Holmes, or Star Trek, or Doctor Who, we came to a VERY good understanding of levels of "canon". Including the pyramidal statuses of "Tolkien's canon" versus the greater "Christopher Tolkien published canon" versus the Unpublished Unfinished Raw Notes versus stuff published by Free League or other ME-licenced properties. Versus the utter trash that Amazon's putting out. And that CERTAINLY includes an understanding of Tolkien's revisions of his own work, then which of those hold final primacy. Let's also mention something the site wouldn't let me earlier - the changing of canon, when, now? Now that both J.R.R. and Christopher have both passed away? NOBODY I mean absolutely NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY gets to change the canon of material at the top of that pyramid. Not least because THEY HAVE BOTH PASSED AWAY and NOBODY with any LEGAL (and irrelevant compared to the MORAL) rights has demonstrated any capability of doing the job competently. And, as someone trying to communicate with you, I am absolutely checking the definition of "moral rights" especially as *I KNOW* my audience here is a lawyer. Wow, Look At Me Ma I'm More Professional And Responsible Than Olsen. Because it DOES seem that he's taking the same kind of path Simon Tolkien is taking and for much the same reason, not to mention wiping his feet of the same material on the same mat. That is at the very least, just my summary of the apparent presentation. He CALLS himself "the Tolkien Professor" and remind me again how his academic credentials allow him to call himself and TRADE UNDER THE NAME of something so specific as "the Tolkien Professor"...? Because his BA was in English *and astrophysics*, but his MA, MPhil and PhD are in mediaeval literature, which are still not Tolkien studies. Who on the planet has a bigger right to be called "the Tolkien Professor" than, say, Tom Shippey, Cambridge B.A., M.A., Ph.D? What makes Olsen entitled to such a title? You're defending a man who is enabling Amazon and RoP. That's the issue. Is this an overly high-level summary? Yes. Even given your specific responses here which I would accept for the discussion, HOW IS THE SUMMARY INCORRECT? How's that "caricature" claim looking now?
@@troffle I generally agree with your statement (though not really the 'levels of canon'), but: _>"1) is he not being paid by Amazon?""2) he's been Amazon video-edited BEFORE so he should be fully aware of what they'll do, including the hypothetical distortion of his message."
First of all, Tolkien didn't want silly cults where they spoke his made-up languages. Secondly, the problem with what you take an eternity to explain is that it's extremely primitive schoolboy thinking (making it a mutlidimensional disrespect to Tolkien), and that in no way it goes to explain his work or say anything of value on the issue. And it also ignores, for example, what he very explicitly said on the issue, which some critics have been smarter to quote beforehand. Indeed, you ignore that Tolkien wrote anything at all... (Which Corey Olsen subconsciously recognises, but doesn't want to admit, despite being unable to avoid it.) Yes, he wrote different dates for this or that (often with a final decision, but who cares), or there are versions which have a few differences. He even deliberately wrote some stories in different forms, e.g. song or prose. (Gosh, darn it! Completely different!) But the stories are still recognisable, and even in "different versions" basically the same. Except in some cases for things which had been dropped or had been teenage drafts (the frame narrative concerning a human sailor who is told these stories). Except of course where they had been largely retained... (Gondolin) You are hamstrung by some very shallow, one-note semantics. By some minor examples, you act like it would be almost impossible to identify any of Tolkien's fiction, and say anything about it, except that the manuscripts were his, trusting the publisher's word. Which is obviously utterly idiotic. And that just to avoid the debate, whether one is intelligent enough to recognise a poorly written TV show as poorly written or not (which furthermore is an insult to Tolkien, by the way). This is the kind of idiotic debate which is typical for such people... Corey Olsen is an irrelevant academic and a poor example of one, irrelevant also for Tolkien, for that matter. Which was clear before, as his analyses are utterly banal and of no value. He just settled on a way to make money.
Everything Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything Tolkien didn't wrote is not canon. Putting Tolkien's versions and revisions of his own work at the same level of any fanfic is just dishonest.
Totally agree with you and I think Corey Olsen's explanation is more correct than not. The problem is that this answer comes to defend a bad faith actor, Amazon's ROP and its marketing, who's usually under attack from other bad faith actors from the other side. RoP is doing things very badly, Corey Olsen is acting in his channel as if it's the most Tolkienian thing he's ever seen and their detractors are acting as if they are the utmost authority of what is canon, what Tolkien would have thought/liked etc. One thing I disagree with is being excited about slop. If you take whatever they serve you, don't expect to be served anything other than slop in the end. There's toxic negativity, but there's also toxic positivity
@@alexkats30 those being slandered as toxic aren’t at all though. Lmao. Apparently deep fake Gandalf roasts of ROP is toxic now too. We won’t now down to mediocrity for fear of being called racist or sexist lollll
@@Makkaru112 There are 100% toxic LOTR ragebaiters out there who offer only surface level criticism and racism and sexism. That doesn't mean it's everyone and it is 100% wrong from Amazon's part to characterize every criticism and critic as that. I am a critic of the show but I won't consider myself one of those people. If you don't either, that's great, why are you getting mad as if I attacked you personally? BTW, I watch Charlie Hopkinson too, he's very funny and talented and not at all the kind of bigoted critic I'm talking about.
I agree with this sentiment the most of everything Ive read and said something similar in my own comment. I might actually mostly agree with Olsen in a vacuum. The problem is he is defending this Amazon show in a way that makes him seem disingenuous and motivated by financial gain or more recognition for his own stuff. RoP is ultimately a bad show that doesn't care about Tolkien's works. It isn't really faithful to any of the versions of the stories Tolkien wrote, or at worst is just completely making stuff up because they don't have the rights secured for the material they would need. To then have their chief Tolkien expert who is on Amazon payroll put out a video saying that " there was never really a canon anyways so you mind as well enjoy what we're giving you" comes off as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to save face, regardless of how correct the statement actually is with Tolkien's complete body of work.
Brilliant! Well done! Only two things to correct. (A) in Nature of Middle Earth there is an incubation period and Elrond's wedding was dated too close to the birth of children, iirc. (B) It's not true that ROP is bad, it's actually good. Also, adaptations can make changes that change the story, and it's not clear cut what is and is not part of the essential core. Thank you!
If you select a particular definition of canon, then yes, Professor Tulip can declare themselves to be the grand wizard of tolkien lore, and thanks to the intravenous application of somewhat tainted heroin, can imagine Rings of Power somehow fits into the works of the good professor. However. If you use the common definition, then the author's works are canon, and if they wish, they can set up secondary canon and so on. If you use that definition, then it doesn't matter if Amazon declares that Tolkien worshipped Satan, and that Galadriel fellated every orc in Middle Earth. It didn't happen, it doesn't matter. As for the Tolkien expert - "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." He might want to buy a hernia belt. Just in case...
"My memory may be faulty" is a clue. Since the conceit of the books is that it is a remembered history from an occasionally unreliable witness (the red book), there is plenty of slack available. You only have to look at more recent history with misremembered memoires and myths which are constantly being revised although the myth remains in the public conscious to see this. I'll probably need to keep my head down after this. I've actually really enjoyed the 2nd season of RoP. It is a superior piece of fan fiction and people are free to not watch it and disregard it if they so wish. U571 was historical bunkem which trashed the actual story but it was still an enjoyable film to watch. Pearl Harbour (sans the romantic subplot) was more historically accurate but awful. 😂
@@wswaine Amazon waited until Christopher Tolkien died early in the production of its DumpsterFire (before they went against what they promised), his "demand" was that Amazon could use the Appendices to make the show, but they couldn't change the lore. As soon as Christopher died, Amazon delayed the show for reshoots, fired Tom Shippey who was the lead Tolkien scholar & friend of Tolkien himself; they wanted Jackson on the team. PeterJackson asked for the scripts then they ghosted him. Then later when asked about it he basically told them good luck.. You can blame this garbage show on Simon Tolkien (who Amazon used to get around all the laws and protections set around the estate and JRR Tolkien’s legacy), its stink doesn't reach Christopher. Firstly: they merge events (from thousands of years of history & build up towards several events but puts them all into one moment as if it’s happening in the same few years without time jumps or anything.) Guyladriel the murderous one dimensional girlboss heroine version of Galadriel never met Miriel(one of Aragorn’s ancestors) because, as an elf, she would have been sacrificed to Morgoth by the King's Men. The hobbits and Gandalf never met in the 2nd Age because Gandalf was in Valinor till the 3rd Age. Miriel wasn’t even born yet. She was born 2000 years before the rings of power era. A precursor to other events to come in later ages. Also Elendil would never say “forget the past and toss it aside.” That’s the whole thing about the Faithful Númenoreans!!! Faithfulness to what’s good. To their elf friends. To the Valar, to Eru Îlluvatar(The One AllFather), The way Galadriel acts like Fëanor when he isn’t seeing straight such as how she threatened bloodshed in the highest court of Númenor! The way she isn’t tall, the way she fights rookies doesn’t make her look strong. Should have had her spar with Elendil who was greater than Miriel in many ways even as far as lineage goes too! (Canon has her as a grandson or son so…) Have her spar with those greater Numenoreans and let the rookies laugh at their masters being vested by an elf woman holding back from actually hurting them! Now that’d be cool. (Remember. Their whole mantra was to write the book Tolkien never wrote”. Also watch them fake super fans. And then watch their social media that had nothing Tolkien on it ever. Like…. It’s painfully obvious what’s going on here. Same formula towards other titles. They’re just trying to bank on the brand of which that’s the only reason they did this. Just watch Peter Jackson’s new movie coming out and the War of the Rohirim. You’ll see that Brian Cox is involved In it along with Philipa Boyens as well as Actor for Èowyn named Miranda Otto. Fran Walsh I also believe is Involved as well! Watch George The Giant Slayer’s first video regarding the war of the rohirrim. It was beautiful. And he has a wonderful soul too. When I say first video. I don’t mean very first uploaded video though lol. ) There was also no Adar. No poppy. No Nori. No fake Gandalf who literally didn’t come the way he was supposed to which introduces Círdan. And since they screwed up the themes and lore so badly they have to dig in their heels. & they are also being sued by multiple people and groups and companies actually. The 3 rings were forged after the 1 ring, not first. They were not in his sights or touch nor did he even know about them. And also guyladriel wasn’t a murderous Fëanorean either. But the note of the elven rings: They were made last and without the knowledge of Sauron. His touch never got to them, nor his malice poured into them. Made in secret so that whole story is thrown out the window as well. And making them first and having the obvious Sauron figure who wasn’t an elf to just be there when they’re making them and have his eye show up in the forge which wasn’t even the worst of it. The greatest of elven smiths still around which is Celebrimbor doesn’t even know what alloying is. Not to mention all their environmental scandals on top of bad CGI stuff. Full of copy past crowds (I wish I was joking), and plagiarism of several films up the wazoo. It’s also getting sued by several people and groups. So many 1 to 1 shots of season 1 and game of thrones and other films that it’s not even funny anymore lol. I’ll also remind you that they just ran an old sick horse til it died of cardiac arrest and then only had a ten min coffee break to loosely honour this horse. Not to mention Tolkien loved animals in a deep way. They also have been causing environmental damage one of which being King Charles ancient forest to make a set. It’s scandal after scandal. And the fire in studio that took four hours to put out with firemen for yet another example. (Note; Isildur being on this show in the timeline these hazily depicted events would mean Isildur is over 3000 years old by the time of the last alliance that began the third age when it ended. Lol. That doesn’t make sense now does it?). So many people made videos over the last two or three years alone regarding the series got them to read the books and then they got very confused first. Then upset when they found out that nothing of the show was I. The books at all. Only twisted and warped things full of inserted politics and themes that Tolkien was no fan of. PS they don’t have the rights to the Silmarillion nor anything much of the second age let alone the first. Only the trilogy books and their appendices…. Remember that they also plagiarized tonnes of films in nontasteful instead of true a homage way… “tempest in me” but when threatening Fëanorean level bloodshed in the court of Númenor was from Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth role which was done with grace and poise of a veteran actress(which doesn’t even sound like anything those of the great chill house of Finarfin would even act like. Again it’d be best to put Elrond there due to Elros. But ooook let’s make girlboss do everything. Even if it continues to make zero sense. 😍 fact they downplayed Elendil who’d never say to “forget the past”, Gil-Galad and Finrod is beyond infuriating and not explaining Elwing, Elronds mother beyond just showing her as a swan was pure LOLism. Like. What’s worse is Grandpabimbor…. Let’s not forget good ol’ Guyladriel either. The LOTR version of Star Wars’ Rey! Guyladriel the Female Fëanor without any of his charms and subtleties and wit… just the bloody violent rages… They lost alot of viewers after their bait and switch behaviour. Hundreds reported shenanigans on their app where it’d force you to watch and episode twice in variously described circumstances. Bribed people left and right with things like that screening. Even the official critics fell asleep. Many longtime film analysts along with actors and film students/professionals give basic criticism and in depth look at the editing and so forth which causes it to fall flat on its face. Abandons plot left and right. Full of member berries. Just because we got fake Tom Bombadil doesn’t mean we’ll flip onto our backs to play with the jingling keys. Balrog wasn’t awoken until thousands of years later. They’re horridly depicted scenarios which often aren’t canon: were separated by hundreds of years. Some of them by thousands. Not cool. Amazon is known to be corrupt.
Why are you trying so hard to stay in the good graces of that smarmy sellout? His "no canon" argument was obviously a disingenuous strawman designed to try and discredit any and all criticism aimed at Rings of Power. He's done nothing but harm to Tolkien's legacy ever since he decided to sell his soul to Amazon and play the role of sycophantic cheerleader for their mediocre television show. Other Tolkien content creators have rightfully criticized him for this and disassociated themselves from him, so it's disappointing to see you still white knighting for him like this.
I’m not trying to stay in his good graces (not sure I ever was), nor am I white knighting for him. Nor do you have evidence of the multiple incendiary claims about him.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Evidence? You just need to watch his videos on Rings of Power to verify for yourself how he's become a sycophantic cheerleader for Amazon's mediocre adaptation. It's beyond self-evident. Now when I called him a sellout or said he sold his soul to Amazon, I wasn't necessarily suggesting he is straight up receiving money from Amazon to act the way he does. Of that I have no evidence, true. But it hardly matters at this point -- whether he's being paid for it or not, I (and many others) have already lost all respect for him.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Again, it sounds like you haven't watched his content on it much. It goes well beyond trying to look on the bright side or taking a glass half full perspective. He will not utter a single bad word about it, and will bend over backwards to try and discredit any and all criticism of it, no matter how legitimate. If you've listened to any of his podcasts prior to Rings of Power (and I know you have), you know he has often criticized various things about Peter Jackson's movies. Which is perfectly fine, you do as well, and so do I, because they're certainly not flawless. Only you and I are also capable of criticizing Rings of Power for its many, many flaws. But Olson absolutely refuses to do so in any way, shape or form (even though he is perfectly okay with criticizing Jackson's films), and when called out on that, he excuses himself with, "Well I'm offering insight and analysis, not reactions". Which is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that, because the fact that he's doing analysis somehow doesn't stop him from saying, in those same analyses, that things from Rings of Power were "awesome" or "really cool" or saying "I loved this and that scene" or whatever. But he will never, ever say that something was bad or poorly executed or nonsensical, or anything negative. It's *almost* as if he's deeply and inherently biased and committed to fawning over the show no matter what, to the point that his analyses of it become extremely compromised and virtually impossible to take seriously. And naturally and inevitably, that ends up tarnishing his image and reputation in the eyes of many within the community.
Olsen's position is based on very nuanced view of what is and is not canon inside of Tolkien's writings, and is misused, and what makes it even worse, is that he formulated it in a way that anticipated its misuse by people, who intentionally rewrote and therefore vandalized Tolkien's work. That's what makes this so insidious so treacherous. He intentionally thought of an argument, that would support the vandalization of Tolkiens work and go against the people, who actually care about Tolkien's world.
@TolkienLorePodcast you are right that I don't know his motive for saying what he's said. Also, one should not look for bad intent when the same thing can be explained by incompetence or ineptitude. However, the creators are multiple times on record, saying that they aim to change the source material. The last presumed motive was that people actually care about Professor Tolkiens work. Sure, there will be those that are against them just for them being them, but I, for example, really do care about it, and I think that it is a pity that the first time this part of the lore has been adapted it has been done this badly because some people cannot help but current day a fantasy masterpiece. I really want other people to wonder as I wondered at the golden age of second age. Look what we got. They are portraying orks as good guys, which is atrocious. If you accept it as true, then you really should look at Gimlis and Legolases contests in different way.
Tolkien's legendarium, like the Bible's canonical texts, includes multiple perspectives and variations on certain events or characters, yet maintains a cohesive framework. In Tolkien’s world, the variations on the Blue Wizards reflect differing theories on their roles, but both interpretations can coexist as they fit within Tolkien’s broader mythos. In contrast, Gandalf appearing in the Second Age lacks support in any of Tolkien’s writings, which explicitly place his arrival in the Third Age. This distinction between "variation within canon" and "invention outside canon" is crucial and is why fans often find the lore deviations in The Rings of Power jarring. Likewise, in the biblical canon, the existence of multiple accounts of creation or the Gospels doesn't imply an “anything goes” approach to additions. These texts are internally validated by long-standing tradition and accepted as part of a larger theological framework. Introducing something like a radically alternative creation myth-such as one where a demiurge creates the world-would not be considered canon. Similarly, Tolkien’s works have an underlying philosophical and cosmological consistency that many fans feel should guide adaptations, even if Tolkien left room for some ambiguity. This is why Olsen's stance feels unmoored to fans who see these deviations as departing from Tolkien’s intent rather than expanding on his themes. In sum, recognizing the difference between Tolkien's variations and outright inventions respects the integrity of his world and mirrors the way canonical religious texts hold together different accounts without allowing for arbitrary additions. This approach preserves the identity and essence of Tolkien’s carefully crafted mythology.
What is the canonical appearance of a balrog? None, but there's hundreds of variations on how the balrog could look. This is just an example, but a very explored one, regarding Tolkien "canon". Tolkien wrote what he wrote, and it is often vague, and when you combine the vague with the curiosity of the reader, imagination fills in the rest. So whatever is "canon", depends on the reader. It's like coloring a coloring book - no filled coloring books will look like another filled coloring book. I call it the retrograde influence of the reader, when it comes to literature, but it's all over human communication. We are primed to interpret language abstractedly, we communicate concepts and limits, which is why we can communicate concepts really well while describing a picture in detail is extremely difficult. Allowing the reader to influence what he or she is reading is the secret ingredient to excellent literature, because it involves the reader; it engages and it forms a relationship between reader and story.
Although it is sort lf true thst there is no canon in Tolkien's works, that doesnt mean that adaptions can do whaterver they want or change whatever they want just because there is no canon.
Olsen was not misquoted or edited out of context. He states in his OM&H #83 video that he insisted the statement be put in the Amazon video, and he had veto rights over it. He says he did so precisely to get a reaction, because he wanted to have a 'teaching moment'. As for the previous time, I presume you mean the now infamous "Tolkien never said" IGN video... He made numerous false assertions in that video. And the 'Out of Context' claim does not stand scrutiny when addressed in full, including his doubling down on his false assertion for months afterward.
So if someone took the Silmarillion and produced a dog's dinner of a show/film out of it, everyone should be happy and mellow about it because Silmarillion isn't canon? I believe most fans would disagree
Well, "The canons of narrative art 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." --- JRRT
@@eugene8498 There is a dictionary definition of canon: "a general rule or principle... standard or criterion" (Chambers). I think this is how Tolkien was using the word.
c. the complete works, as of an author Collins Dictionary b: the authentic works of a writer Merriam-Webster all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person Cambridge Dictionary b : the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written Britannica a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the real work of a particular writer Oxford Learner's Dictionary
The idea of "canon" in literature is cancer. It's applying to fiction the same standards as the catholic inquisition did to religion. Modern idea of canon destroys storytelling and our engagement with it. It is a symptom of capitalism and commodification of stories, where everything needs a label of officiality. Like the story was a product to be regulated by greedy actors. The idea of canon in fandom mostly originated from Star Trek, so it's useful to quote Leonard Nimoy on the subject: ""Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae.bOpen your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."
Melon Geek: According to Merriam Webster: In the context of authors, canon means "the authentic works of a writer." This means ANY writing of Tolkien, published by him or by Christopher, are the "authentic works" because the Professor wrote them. Period. It matters not a smidgen whether he was playing with different ideas on the same subject or not. ANYTHING he wrote is canon. Now therefore, whatever he changed in order to publish LotR became the definitive canon since he obviously changed those things, ie., the date of Gandalf's arrival, etc., in order to fit the work being published. When he continued to rework things after publishing LotR, we have to ask, Did Tolkien make official edits to LotR to accommodate these changes? If yes, then we should have that in subsequent editions of LotR. If he did not, and this is the point, then the set canon shown in LotR is still the set canon, the definitive canon. Or as someone else has quoted Tolkien: "The canons of narrative art 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."--- JRRT
The fact that Corey Olsen has allowed his words--in context or not--to be used to bolster the credibility of the Rings of Power speaks volumes on his erudition and his "scholarship" regarding Tolkien. I have been a Tolkien dramatic reader since the 1970s, and have studied his works nearly as long. I doubt Olsen has studied them any more than I have. He may have his degree as a prof of literature. I taught English for over 25 years. I can assure you my idea of literary canon is quite standard to my profession. And as you can certainly gather from the reaction of many on UA-cam to the RoP, my understanding of canon is not unique. It is the common sense, logical understanding of the word and its intended meaning. Olsen has allowed his reputation to be used to promote the most deplorable act of literary vandalism we have ever witnessed. Or as the Nerd Cookies lady has said it, it is the bastardization of Tolkien's legendarium.
So my dear Geek, while I usually commend you on your scholarly analysis, I cannot agree with you here. But I will not demote you from your position as my favorite Tolkien vlogger, even so. One day you and I will have a LONG conversation about our favorite author. Namarie.
thank you, finally someone who knows the real definition of canon
modern fandoms have twisted it to mean that the legal copyright holder can change reality
"The authentic works" does not tell you which Version of events should be canon. What canonically happened to the Blue Wizards? His early writings, or his late writings? Both are "authentic works" of the author, so which is Canon?
@@JainaSoloB312 use your imagination, as the professor intended
@@JainaSoloB312 Everything Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything Tolkien did not write is not canon.
Canon is the corpus of Tolkien's work. Different versions are part of that canon.
If everything Tolkien wrote is canon, that includes his later ideas that didn’t get published. Calling what he did publish the “definitive canon” is therefore using the word in a different sense than the one you yourself gave at the outset, because now you’re limiting it to not only the “authentic” writings (which all of them are, whether published or not), but to some subset based on their status. Well, is it because they’re published? Tolkien changed that more than once. Is it because he himself published it and didn’t get it changed in his lifetime? Guess the Silmarillion is out. You simply can’t define things this way without throwing out at least one baby with the bath water.
What we know is that ROP is shit
No argument there.
Facts
What.. you are not modern.
💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩. One for each episode.
Sure, Tolkien changed his mind often about a lot of things. But I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than saying that all that Tolkien wrote is canon, whether he published it himself or others did, whether it's contradicting or not. The point is that canon is what Tolkien put to paper, and not anyone else. Maybe there are two or three versions he came up with, but it's his versions - and not those that a random fanfiction writer can up with. To make that distinction - canon is what Tolkien wrote and fanon is what other people wrote or filmed - shouldn't be that controversial. And going through the definition of "canon" in various dictionaries, I don't see that it doesn't fit the definition of canon.
As for Gandalf's arrival: there is a difference between Olorin and Gandalf, even if they are the same person. Gandalf is a very specific form with a very specific purpose. Olorin may have been in Middle-earth before, but not in the shape of Gandalf and not with the mission that Gandalf had.
As Olórin he went to Middle Earth with Melian as the leader of the 5 guardians which gave context for her to end up in Nan Elmoth to eventually meet Elwë (Elu Thingol)! ❤❤❤
Do you want Tinfang Warble to be canon? Because this is how you make Tinfang Warble canon. Do you want Danuin, Ranuin, and Fanuin to be canon? Spoiler alert: You do not want Danuin, Ranuin, and Fanuin to be canon. It's not like two to three versions we're talking about here. We're talking about tens of versions. And many of these things we know Tolkien had rejected for ever; and because Tolkien never finalized his later versions, we don't know whether or not he would have rejected any of those things had he had the time to finalize them.
you understand, by saying this it means nothing means anything.. your inferring a writers drafts should be considered canon even though it didn't make it into the finished work..! so its a marvel universe mulit-verse justification.! i do understand why folk are saying similar.. they want to like the show and not feel like they are betraying the author they claim to adore! but the simple is factor is, you are! you want your cake and to eat it. But not all of us can devalue tolkiens published works so easily because we are desperate for content.
Surely, whatever canon is, it can only be something Tolkien actually wrote.
The context of the Corey clip is that it is Amazon publicity material. Including the nonsense about "the East" being Mordor. Plainly meant to excuse the introduction of Gandalf to the Second Age story, and to Rhun. In fact UT 'The Istari' includes the intriguing statement "beyond Nurnen Gandalf had never gone", implying he had in fact gone to Mordor.
The basis for Gandalf visiting Middle-earth in the Second Age is from Peoples of Middle-earth (HOME 12), 'Glorfindel':
"That Olorin, 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 has yet been said of this."
In context, he isn't a wizard yet. The essay on the Istari (UT) says the wizards "belonged solely to the Third Age and then departed." Muddied yet again by the Blue Wizards possibly arriving in the Second Age (POME 'The Five wizards').
Agreed.
Might be referring to the concept of the five guardians. From Tolkien Gateway: "After Oromë found the Elves in Cuiviénen, the Valar planned to make War against Melkor. Oromë and Tulkas had dwelt with the Elves for many years, protecting them, so when they left to make war preparations,[1] the Valar put a guard about Cuiviénen to protect the Elves from battle for the following two Valian Years.[2]
It was a group of great Maiar to guard the Elves meanwhile. They were Tarindor (later Saruman), Olórin (Gandalf), Hrávandil (Radagast), Palacendo and Haimenar. They were led by Melian, who had travelled to Cuiviénen before the Five Guardians; she was the sixth Maiar guardian and was the only female spirit among them.[1]"
Key being that this is not Gandalf, but Olórin.
@@kahinaloren That's very interesting. It's probably worth mentioning (to head off sceptics of whom I might have been one) that this is authentic Tolkien material, first published in Carl F. Hostetter (ed.), The Nature of Middle-earth, 2021.
@@pwmiles56 Thank you. I find Tolkien Gateway rather reliable, and people can look it up if they are interested. Should probably have included the Hostetter reference. I need to get that book myself btw. Currently reading the Fall of Numenor though.
I meant to address the “to the east” line and forgot thanks to not watching the video “live” as it were, and then having some technical issues to boot. I do agree that Olsen’s particular interpretation seems strained, but I also think it’s not impossible to reconcile with something like the ROP story. Gandalf hasn’t been to the East in who knows how long and has no plans to, and maybe that’s what he meant, even if he had briefly been there before. That would contradict the note you mention about Nurnen, but so would his time with the Elves in the first age in Nature of Middle-earth. But as I said, basically ROP is fan fiction with no real basis in ANY text, so the criticism is fair.
A few years ago if this was said I would not have minded as much. But today due to how the likes of Amazon and others just use Tolkien's work and ruin it's story and how it unfolds, replacing it with their terrible characters, events and missing the important details.
Okay but don't you think we should be able to decouple the crappiness of Bezos's show from Corey's statement, since it would be equally true no matter whether RoP ever existed or not?
Like imagine if someone proved to me that man-made climate change was real, and then I said, "If you'd told me all this in 1995 I would not have minded as much. But today after decades of smug liberals shaming me for driving a gas-guzzling car and disregarding the importance of fossil fuel consumption to a growing economy, I am going to pretend that those who believe in man-made climate change are wrong, even though all my rational faculties tell me they're right. I'm going to deny what I know to be true because I'm mad at them."
This is an important cognitive skill called "decoupling".
Lol why do you think the lotr professionals talk that way all of a sudden. You are to accept and believe it.
@@coreyander286 Can't really compare climate change to a book series. One is real life, the other is based around the portrayal of a beloved Fantasy series.
The problem is people who made Rings of power will twist Corey Olsen's words, to try and excuse their terrible writing in the show and why they messed up the second age timeline.
But the Thing is there is a Canon in the form of how the final books where published, What happened in the LOTR trilogy of books are canon, so is how the second and first age happened.
Some details by Tolkien might be out of place, conflicted with older or newer statements. But the overall storyline and plot progression is the same from Age of the Lamps to the fourth Age.
@@m0-m0597 Of course quite a few of them have suddenly become quite more flexible to what is true to the original writings. The Tolkien estate itself has also begin to accept and allow Tolkien's work to be misinterpreted, altered as well. Ever since Christopher Tolkien passed away.
I would dare say this is why more important than ever we need to make sure there is true canon that is kept too. Which should be: Tolkien's published stories first and their books that support them.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD You're alright. Reading this gives me hope. If we drop standards, it will all be torn down, eventually.
Also, Tokien changing/contradicting what he'd written is WAY different than a high budget fan film doing the same.
Also Tolkien SIGNING off on adaptations is way different than Tolkien signing off on... face palm....
I think for a Second Age "adaptation" we have at least the Appendices, and what's scattered in the main text of the LotR as CANON. And in a broader sense, we see everything Tolkien wrote that doesn't contradict the LotR books (or each other) as canon, and we have a lot of those.
If not, then canon never existed for any work by any writer that has done any revision after publishing.
And you know the show contradicts the Appendices A LOT, and we are NOT talking about Gil-galad's parents here.
You’re not saying anything I don’t say in this video.
@@TolkienLorePodcast What I'm saying is, it's bs to say there's no canon in whatever context. Corey Olsen knew what he had signed up for (not for the first time), and he wasn't wronged. If you are saying this in the video then forgive me for missing the entire point.
@eugene8498 I’m not saying he was “wronged,” just that people were jumping to conclusions based on virtually no context.
@@TolkienLorePodcast And I'm saying there's no context for him to say that.
@@TolkienLorePodcast And the conclusion is obvious.
rather than a nod to the canon, they're using other gestures
By seeing him working with Amazon, I think we already know what Olsen's agenda is.
Edited or not.
He's been digging up the lore in Amazon's abomination for years, and that says all.
Sad to see this guy essentially defend the cringiest “Tolkien” scholar out there.
Erik Kaine, JustSomeGuy + EuropeanLore are awesome though! Same with SirBookSage, GeorgeTheGiantSlayer, TheTolkienShirt and many more!
Agreed!!
he has been desperate for recognition since he gave himself the title " the tolkien professor".. he was always gonna sell out! He foolish thought he could make money by creating a Tolkien academy.
To be fair Tolkien didnt describe himself as a fourth wave feminist,soooo.....................
He did not call himself a fascist but supported them anyway sooo....................
No he didn't, you're lying@@darkthorpocomicknight7891
But he was open-minded enough to quote a feminist because he found her insightful. He quoted Simone de Beauvoir in his BBC interview, and said her quote about death was a perfect encapsulation of the theme of _Lord of the Rings._ And while he was a conservative he recognized that conservatism had its pitfalls. He compared it to the Elves trying to stop the flow of time and the loss of Middle-earth to the Dominion of Men using the Three Rings, calling them "embalmers". See Letter 154.
As to darkthorpocomicknight, the only fascists I'm aware of who he supported were the Francoists in the Spanish Civil War. And as far as I can tell, he didn't support the Francoists out of any strong ideological attachments, but rather because the Nationalists were allied with the Catholic Church more than the Republicans were. Had Tolkien lived to see the Salvadoran Civil War, where you had the rightwing government assassinating a Jesuit priest Oscar Romero because the Catholic Church there was often supportive of the leftwing guerillas, maybe Tolkien would've sided with the leftists.
@@coreyander286 Exactly so. I don't know why people don't bother to actually read.
@darkthorpocomicknight7891 in the Spanish Civil War the anarchists and communists were committing brutality to innocent people and Catholics including scalping priests. Sorry but recognizing Franco was the lesser of 2 evil makes sense. Tolkien was right
My man - corey olsen has a regular vlog where he explains, puffs and applauds every episode of this show. He constantly appreciates the deep cut easter eggs - they said the name! They showed the thing! - but ignores basic points like the galadriel of the books was too wise to be fooled by god-like annatar, never mind scrub sauron in homeless human form. The criticism is fair in spirit even if unfairly cut - which I'm too busy to look into.
They call it "lord of the rings: the rings of power" - if the second age as described in the lord of the rings appendix b is not canon, we might as well start grunting and banging each other over the head with rocks because language no longer has meaning.
Did you maybe notice that I said I don’t agree with Corey on everything?
@TolkienLorePodcast sure - just pointing out an endpoint to canon ambiguity -Amazon's own insistence their product IS LOTR, and so by reflexive property, lotr is their canon (and ignoring appendix b is an insurmountable problem) - also emphasized CO would rather talk about the definition of canon than address his own refusal to take a stand on whether the lord of the rings is worth upholding as written and enjoyed for 70 years. So, the criticism he gets generally is well earned. Carry on!
Here's an important skill in life: when someone makes a claim, you analyze and judge that claim on its own merits, isolated from the greater context of the person making the claim. If someone tells you you're damaging your car, you have to consider that they might be right, even if they burnt down an orphanage. You can't just think, _Well he must be wrong about my car, because he burnt down an orphanage._ The orphanage-burner may be correct, there's no contradiction between burning down an orphanage and knowing about cars, and if you assume he must be wrong about the car because of your strong pro-orphanage, anti-fire position, your car might break down.
Whether or not Corey Olsen goes too easy on _Rings of Power_ has absolutely nothing to do with the statement that there is no such thing as canon in Tolkien. If he says "There is no canon in Tolkien... therefore the Elrond-Galadriel kiss was perfect", then you can assail him. But you cannot say "the Elrond-Galadriel kiss was terrible, therefore Corey Olsen is wrong about canon, in fact it's divided into official tiers, we have T-canon and C-canon and PJ-canon and LT-canon..."
@@coreyander286 offering a bad analogy to demonstrate your supposed mastery of an important life skill is a strange thing to do.
Here, olsen is not talking about two unrelated things - he's talking about Tolkein canon while explaining this supposedly Tolkein show. It's unfair to edit the comment to make him sound ignorant, but it's also unfair to sever the context to make certain objections sound ignorant.
So its more like - I've seen the arsonist burn down the orphanage, and I have the surviving orphans in the car driving away, and he is telling me that I need to stop the car because of engine damage, I'm either being dumb or willfully ignorant for taking what he's saying at face value and stop the car to give him access to the rest of the orphans. This analogy isn't quite right to what we're actually talking about either, perhaps I have a few non-orphaned kids in the car to represent the ambiguity of canon. I can't decide whether olsen or the wonder twins are the arsonist. Important skill.
I have been very careful to say that this show is literally called lord of the rings, and so those books we have all read and amazon is referring to in their product line must be a baseline for whatever is meant by the word canon. I trust you will go that far with me, that the word holds some kind of meaning. There are some things which are not canon - like contradictory lore notes or biblical apocrypha. There are some things which are - whatever amazon paid 250 million dollars for and the four gospels. How to view the rest in relation to the central text that defines the main story and messege? We can reasonably disagree, so I dont care.
I refuse to err on the side of anything goes, and allow that you can slap a Tolkein label on a santa claus elf - or one so mundane you have to check the ears to see what you've got.
I am now one of the 12k who watched olsens explanation of what he meant. He does not want to say the published lord of the rings should be a guide for a show called lord of the rings, because that would undermine his position of helping to sell this show that has nothing to do with it. He is the arsonist, distracting us with an argument whether we should bother putting out fires since some fires are too hot to put out while the engine blows up and burns up the rest of the elves. I mean orphans. That's getting closer to homologous.
Regardless of the contradictions that exist in the multiple versions of certain details and stories of the legendarium, Olsens point is moot if it is in direct relation to the Amazon show. I might be able to agree with him in a vaccum. Sure, Tolkien was wanting to change certain aspects of his stories later in life or maybe had written several versions of them over the course of his life. Sometimes he even unintentionally made a discrepancy and then assimilated retroactively it into being part of the cohesive story... like with the Glorfindel who died in the first age defending Gondolin from the Lord of Balrogs being made the same character as the Glorfindel who is in FOTR.
The reason discrepancies like this do not matter and do not prove Olsens point imo is because the Amazon show is not really based on any of it. The liberties they are taking are their own and any decision they've made like for example bringing Gandalf into the 2nd Age is not based on trying to reconcile contradictory writings of Tolkien. It is based on name recognition, advertising and trying to make more money for an show that has been failing abysmally since it first came on the air. They know Gandalf is a beloved character from the PJ films and are doing anything and everything to have nostalgia bait to get more viewership. Then they give this deconstructionist 2nd year art film student horseshit of saying "there is no canon bro" to try and rebuke naysayers.
Regarding the Amazon video in which Olsen said 'there is no such thing as canon in Tolkien'.
I suggest not falling for the 'it was edited out of context', apologetic. Olsen insisted, by his own admission, that his statement be put in that video. He insisted on it to get a reaction, so he could indulge in a "teaching moment".
Olsen: _"I totally did that on purpose. I insisted that statement about there not really being any such thing as Tolkien Canon because Tolkien's ideas were ever evolving."_
OM&H #83
_"I'm like 'There's a serious gap in these arguments and this feels like an important teaching moment'. So when Prime Video approached me to do the Gandalf video I was like 'Well that will get some attention, so why don't I raise it here, and then if I'm very lucky it will be picked up by lots of hater UA-cam sites and then everybody will be talking about Canon'. And lo and behold it happened."_
ibid
Olsen had veto rights on it:
_"Prime Video very graciously gave me veto rights on that video, when I agreed to do that video with them"_
ibid
That is the context. It was not edited to remove context. *It was put in as that at Olsen's request. It was fully intentional* on his part.
(And your allusion to his previous 'out of context' claim, i.e. the IGN 'Tolkien never said' video, Olsen made numerous false statements (not just beards) in that video. I can detail them out if you want. And there is no 'context' that will change Olsen statement: *'There is no textual justification for that* [beards] *at all"* to 'there is textual justification for it'. Olsen's 'apologetics' afterwards continued to be disingenuous for months. I can lay this out in detail.)
This is what Olsen claims to be the 'defintion' of "canon":
_"A Canon is an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon by some group of people whose authority to do so is broadly accepted."_
Rings and Realms, Tolkien and "Canon"
What is the source for this definition? Or did Olsen make it up?
Here are a series of definitions regarding 'literary' canon:
c. the complete works, as of an author
Collins Dictionary
b: the authentic works of a writer
Merriam-Webster
all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person
Cambridge Dictionary
b : the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written
Britannica
a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the real work of a particular writer
Oxford Learner's Dictionary
The commonality in these definitions is the body of work of an author.
There is nothing about needing a group of people with 'authority' to determine it.
Olsen seems to be appealing to an 'authority', that he would consider himself part of.
What exactly is this 'authoritative' body supposed to determine?
Regarding Gandalf in the Second Age.
1). Listen more carefully to what Olsen said. He worded that very carefully (and disingenuously) to not say that, but just to leave that impression.
2). Tolkien was not toying with the idea. If you think he was, provide the evidence, please.
The Canon of Tolkien is what Tolkien wrote. That there are variants or 'contradictions' is not relevant to it being Tolkien's canon.
This is one of the problems with Olsen's 'defintion' in that he does not confront that directly and include it (one way or another) in his defintion.
re: Arwen's date of birth, what Tolkien wrote was:
"If Arwen was born in TA 341 (as a correction)..."
This was in the ca 1959 Ageing of Elves (NoMe). It was not for the second edition and, in the event, he did not end up changing it.
Tolkien rewriting, revising, contradicting what Tolkien wrote about Tolkien's world, is still Tolkien. Only Tolkien can write Tolkien.
Others doing that and claiming it is what Tolkien wrote, said, meant or intended or that "It's not our story, you know, it's Tolkien's" are dishonest.
As are self-declared "Tolkien Professors" who say:
_"I don't generally care that much what authors say about their books because it's not their's anymore."_
...while trying to justify others rewriting or changing what Tolkien wrote, by appealing to Tolkien and mischaracterizing what he said.
I'm going to put this here, regarding Olsen's 'Gandalf' comment in the Amazon video (which I will remind any reader, Olsen said he had veto rights over):
Olsen:
_"That same passage where he talks about his many names he says "To the East, I go not."_
_When we look at that quote in context, he's talking to a dude from Gondor, and the people of Gondor. the call Mordor "the East"._
_He meant: "Don't expect me to go throw down with, you know, the Dark Lord at the gates of Barad-dur.""_
In "That same passage" the "dude" is Faramir. And it is Faramir relating to Frodo and Sam what Gandalf has said to him:
"‘Mithrandir we called him in elf-fashion,’ said Faramir, ‘and he was content. Many are my names in many countries, he said. Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Dwarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.’"
LotR, Window on the West
The self-declared "Tolkien Professor", in defence of A-RoP, claims that it means that Gandalf will not go to Mordor to personally fight Sauron.
But lets see what another professor has to say about this. That professor being one Professor Tolkien:
"The date of Gandalf’s arrival is uncertain. He came from beyond the Sea, apparently at about the same time as the first signs were noted of the re-arising of ‘the Shadow’: the reappearance and spread of evil things. But he is seldom mentioned in any annals or records during the second millennium of the Third Age. Probably he wandered long (in various guises), engaged not in deeds and events but in exploring the hearts of Elves and Men who had been and might still be expected to be opposed to Sauron. His own statement (or a version of it, and in any case not fully understood) is preserved that his name in youth was Olórin in the West, but he was called Mithrandir by the Elves (Grey Wanderer), Tharkûn by the Dwarves (said to mean ‘Staff-man’), Incánus in the South, and Gandalf in the North, but ‘to the East I go not’.
‘The West’ here plainly means the Far West beyond the Sea, not part of Middle-earth; the name Olórin is of High-Elven form. ‘The North’ must refer to the North-western regions of Middle-earth, in which most of the inhabitants or speaking-peoples were and remained uncorrupted by Morgoth or Sauron. In those regions resistance would be strongest to the evils left behind by the Enemy, or to Sauron his servant, if he should reappear. The bounds of this region were naturally vague; its eastern frontier was roughly the River Carnen to its junction with Celduin (the River Running), and so to Núrnen, and thence south to the ancient confines of South Gondor. (It did not originally exclude Mordor, which was occupied by Sauron, although outside his original realms ‘in the East’, as a deliberate threat to the West and the Númenóreans.) ‘The North’ thus includes all this great area: roughly West to East from the Gulf of Lune to Núrnen, and North and South from Carn Dûm to the southern bounds of ancient Gondor between it and Near Harad. *Beyond Núrnen Gandalf had never gone."*
Unfinished Tales, The Istari, a pre- 2nd edition of Lord of the Rings note
"It is very unclear what was meant by ‘in the South’. *Gandalf disclaimed ever visiting ‘the East’, but actually he appears to have confined his journeys and guardianship to the western lands, inhabited by Elves and peoples in general hostile to Sauron.* At any rate it seems unlikely that he ever journeyed or stayed long enough in the Harad (or Far Harad!) to have there acquired a special name in any of the alien languages of those little known regions. The South should thus mean Gondor (at its widest those lands under the suzerainty of Gondor at the height of its power). At the time of this Tale, however, we find Gandalf always called Mithrandir in Gondor (by men of rank or Númenórean origin, as Denethor, Faramir, etc.). This is Sindarin, and given as the name used by the Elves; but men of rank in Gondor knew and used this language. The ‘popular’ name in the Westron or Common Speech was evidently one meaning ‘Greymantle’, but having been devised long before was now in an archaic form. This is maybe represented by the Greyhame used by Éomer in Rohan."
Unfinished Tales, The Istari, 1967 note
Professor Tolkien, contra Corey Olsen, writes that the meaning of "to the East I go not" is literal. Gandalf did not go in to Rhun.
*'Do you want to be true to what you think Tolkien was imagining...OR, do you want to be true to what Tolkien said about the world'*
I'm confused, even by Olsen's definition of 'canon', don't we have "an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon", etc. etc.?
Thanks for the comment btw, I thought I had to endure Olsen's video again, I don't have to now.
@@eugene8498 Olsen says is it has to be determined by some sort of authoratative group.
He is being disingenuous.
He should clearly and precisely state what exactly this group with authority is supposed to consist of. And what exactly and precisely this group with authority is supposed to determine about Tolkien's writings.
What he seems to be doing is combining 'definitions' for a 'religious' canon and for a *broad* literary canon (e.g. what is considered to be in the canon of English literature), to make up his own definition. And then he is applying it to a literary canon for a writer (i.e. the corpus of an individual author).
@@Tar-Elenion Did he invent that to justify show Gandalf going to the East? Gosh. I mean the part about "to the East I go not".
@@eugene8498 I don't know why he invented that definition. I suspect it is because he considers himself to be an 'authority' that would be in on 'determining' the 'canon' for Tolkien.
But his statement that 'To the East, I go not', means that Gandalf will not go to Barad-dur and engage in physical combat with Sauron is definitely made up.
Tolkien explicitly says what is means.
Of course Olsen has stated that he does not care what authors say about their works:
_"I don't generally care that much what authors say about their books because it's not their's anymore. They've published it, it's now standing on its own and now we get to interact with it and I have as much right to look at it and tell you what it is saying than the author."_
OM&H #83
Do any Tolkien published books contradict other books ?
Not "playing with ideas", but books.
I want to say some discrepancies have been found, but off hand I don’t recall if those were publishers errors, inconsistencies between text and maps, or what. I feel fairly certain Fonstad found that Tolkien’s description of some geographical item and the map in LOTR, but I think that might have been due to a mistake by Christopher (who did most of the map drawing). So short answer is, there are some but I’m not sure how pertinent they are.
@TolkienLorePodcast So by the definition where Lore is what's in the books, that works.
This situation can reasonably be compared to early Christian schisms. There were a lot of divisions created over petty things. However, where RoP would fall in that analogy would be some kind of gnostic wackery that no one knows about anymore because it was so nutty it died with its originator.
Tolkien and Christopher is a bit like Muhammad and Ali in terms of the Sunni-Shia disagreement.
I quite disagree regarding context of his words and definition of canon. JRR and Christopher Tolkien created a canon, it just isn't one where everything is neatly defined with no unclarities and no grey areas. Deeper canon includes those fluid ideas such as the uncertainty of the origin of Orcs. For simplicity's sake, we can say all the parts the two wrote and did not later explicitly correct are regular canon. Deeper canon would be including all the discussions and things he has never made up his mind as well as previous versions, basically everything JRR and Christopher ever wrote about without finality.
Context is important because the "there is no canon" statements were made to support a show that is violating even the mushiest type of canon. Amazon:tToP is intentionally changing things Tolkien made quite clear and generally doesn't show any respect or love for the works of Tolkien. It tries to subvert both the canon and the spirit of Tolkien's work. It therefore isn't even fan fiction.
Unlike the Peter Jackson trilogy of movies, it doesn't just change things in order to transport literature into cinema (and I'm already unhappy with how he changed some characters).
Canon indeed comes with various definitions and sub categories. In the common tongue, it is how we and also you used it. There are very hard canons and more soft canons. Literature studies itself is a huge field with completely contradictory points of viewing literature. I don't know about Olson but I can say from university experience that sadly, the deconstruction and postmodern ("death of the author") view points have become one of the most common.
PS: Sorry if my point isn't very articulate today but I'm on strong pain killers, which cloud my mind a bit.
Arguably, the chain of Tolkien's canon could be summed up as the published works first, the works he intended to publish such as the Silmarillion next, his letters that revealed his thoughts on his works during his lifetime, the posthumously published works that at the very least show ideas he once considered, and last of all Christopher's and later authors compiling or writing about Tolkien's work. No disrespect to Christopher, but he was interpreting the collection of his father's writing without the ability to truly confirm his father's intent on subjects following his passing.
Olsen bringing up the uncertainty of material published posthumously (as he appears to be using it in defense of the show) does not excuse the outright disregard for Tolkien's narrative that RoP shows.
I get what Cory Olsen was saying, but I don’t think this can be used as an excuse to ignore legitimate criticism of the Rings of Power. It’s true that Tolkien kept adapting his story (kinda similar to how George Lucas kept coming out with different edits of Star Wars) except Tolkien’s changes were mainly about the background and lore not main character storylines (with rare exceptions, like Gollum’s ring in the Hobbit becoming the One Ring).
So, Tolkien liked to keep exploring and refining ideas, but he also wanted his story to be consistent. It bothered him when people pointed out errors in his book (i.e. Gimli in the Two Towers making a comment about not using his Axe since Moria, forgetting about Amon Hen). He went over his work meticulously to make sure it was consistent, even going so far as to make the phases of the moon reflect our real calendar. The goal with Tolkien’s changes was to make a better story. Changing a story and making it worse or just not as great isn’t the same thing as changes that enhance the story.
No ill will towards the actors (they have no real say into what direction the story goes). The directors and producers have the final say and the blame is solely on them.
I don’t have a problem with people who enjoyed Rings of Power. You’re free to enjoy what you want, but when I’m told that I’m a terrible person for not enjoying it…it’s frustrating. Sure, don’t harass the actors, but don’t make excuses for the show runners and the billion dollar corporations who just want your money, and don’t care about the stories we love.
Technically, I immediately understood what Olsen was saying and in the grammatical sense you are correct. However, your analysis undermines the context of Olsen' s statement and gives him a free pass. Olsen said it in the context of the Rings of Power, it was an interview for the Rings of Power. What Olsen said was to defend the Rings of Power. He may not have endorsed the precise editing ("Grand Elf etc) but he knew precisely the forum in which he expressed himself (a Rings of Power derivative product for me is this kind of show) and the point is clear. He is technically correct BUT he is disingenuous. When people say "oh what does he say, there is canon" means precisely what you said : "there is no Tolkien version that could be the Rings of Power".
In common parlance, precise wording and context are often interwinrd. It may not be technically correct to deny Olsen's claim grammaticaly but it is correct in denying Olsen's contextual meaning: you are defending Rings of Power by being disingenuous.
I don’t think he’s being disingenuous. As I point out in the video I think he just enjoys things I (and others) don’t enjoy. There’s nothing wrong with fan fiction per se. I just don’t like it. Adaptations contradict source material all the time, and it’s really personal preference as to whether you or anyone else is ok with that, and to what degree.
To my mind, the idea that there is no Canon of Tolkien's work does not make sense. We have Tolkien wrote (and I will also include such contributions as Christopher made due to his incredibly involved role in his father's writings, dating as far back as Christopher's childhood). How can these not be Canon? Now, assembling them into a coherent whole is another matter given the Professor's love of changing his mind to rewrite things and never propagating all the relevant changes everywhere they needed or at times leaving an idea so incomplete that it really doesn't fit with his other writings. One can end up admiring a tiny gem of a part of a story and realize it has no place in the larger Legendarium.
But the matter of Mr. Olsen is quite different. He has had a role with Amazon around the Rings of Power of show for some time and they certainly used that initial clip as an attempt to justify what they had done on the grounds that they had a bona-fide Tolkien authority to support their take. There is no way he did not understand their objective when he sat down to make that first clip. But it is the 2nd video that I find particularly damning. He talks about many of the issues that you discussed and how Tolkien frequently changed things. But in about the last 2.5 minutes he then proceeds to justify what the makers of the show did as simply their "head canon" and therefore quite acceptable in an adaptation even when the "head canon" is simply their own creation and is one that does not fit with any of the versions written by Tolkien.
_>"There is no way he did not understand their objective when he sat down to make that first clip."
If you want to say everything he wrote is canon, you have to deal with contradictions galore. The point is that there was never a final version of the whole story from Ainulindale to Sauron’s fall. Even the Ainulindale was up for revision multiple times. I agree about the show being fan fiction as I said in my video. That doesn’t make what Olsen said wrong though. And frankly any show in the second age would have at least some fan fiction because he just didn’t put in enough detail for a full adaptation.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Does your definition of 'canon' include something about 'contradictions'?
Can you provide a precise definition of what you mean by 'canon'?
@@TolkienLorePodcast guy below is right.
Contradictory statements don’t render something as not canon lmao. That’d be ridiculous.
One could simply get around this by picking a coherent narrative from the things Tolkien himself ACTUALLY WROTE and sticking with that (literally what his own son did when publishing silmarillion).
Hacks making it up as they go is not the same as Tolkien changing HIS story to suit HIS needs. This isn’t complicated stuff here.
@@Tar-Elenion Thank you for the additional information. I have now read your other posts farther down in the Comments section. If anything, it just makes Olsen's behavior in this matter even worse.
When I look at something made to represent Tolkien I find it pretty easy to know if it is any good simply by the feel. Does it feel wrong? Unfortunately the answer is almost always yes. For a long time people said it would be impossible to put LOTR into film and I still believe this to be true, but Jacksons films felt right enough for most people to consider them an entertaining addition. Unfortunately ROP does not feel right, and most people without an agenda will agree. The funny thing is if ROP had been named something else and just taken as fantasy series with themes from Tolkien, I could probably have watched it without getting the feeling that things were wrong.
Amazon waited until Christopher Tolkien died early in the production of its DumpsterFire (before they went against what they promised), his "demand" was that Amazon could use the Appendices to make the show, but they couldn't change the lore. As soon as Christopher died, Amazon delayed the show for reshoots, fired Tom Shippey who was the lead Tolkien scholar & friend of Tolkien himself; they wanted Jackson on the team.
PeterJackson asked for the scripts then they ghosted him. Then later when asked about it he basically told them good luck.. You can blame this garbage show on Simon Tolkien (who Amazon used to get around all the laws and protections set around the estate and JRR Tolkien’s legacy), its stink doesn't reach Christopher.
Firstly: they merge events (from thousands of years of history & build up towards several events but puts them all into one moment as if it’s happening in the same few years without time jumps or anything.) Guyladriel the murderous one dimensional girlboss heroine version of Galadriel never met Miriel(one of Aragorn’s ancestors) because, as an elf, she would have been sacrificed to Morgoth by the King's Men.
The hobbits and Gandalf never met in the 2nd Age because Gandalf was in Valinor till the 3rd Age.
Miriel wasn’t even born yet. She was born 2000 years before the rings of power era. A precursor to other events to come in later ages.
Also Elendil would never say “forget the past and toss it aside.” That’s the whole thing about the Faithful Númenoreans!!!
Faithfulness to what’s good. To their elf friends. To the Valar, to Eru Îlluvatar(The One AllFather), The way Galadriel acts like Fëanor when he isn’t seeing straight such as how she threatened bloodshed in the highest court of Númenor! The way she isn’t tall, the way she fights rookies doesn’t make her look strong.
Should have had her spar with Elendil who was greater than Miriel in many ways even as far as lineage goes too! (Canon has her as a grandson or son so…)
Have her spar with those greater Numenoreans and let the rookies laugh at their masters being vested by an elf woman holding back from actually hurting them! Now that’d be cool.
(Remember. Their whole mantra was to write the book Tolkien never wrote”. Also watch them fake super fans. And then watch their social media that had nothing Tolkien on it ever. Like…. It’s painfully obvious what’s going on here. Same formula towards other titles. They’re just trying to bank on the brand of which that’s the only reason they did this.
Just watch Peter Jackson’s new movie coming out and the War of the Rohirim. You’ll see that Brian Cox is involved In it along with Philipa Boyens as well as Actor for Èowyn named Miranda Otto. Fran Walsh I also believe is Involved as well!
Watch George The Giant Slayer’s first video regarding the war of the rohirrim. It was beautiful. And he has a wonderful soul too. When I say first video.
I don’t mean very first uploaded video though lol. )
There was also no Adar. No poppy. No Nori. No fake Gandalf who literally didn’t come the way he was supposed to which introduces Círdan. And since they screwed up the themes and lore so badly they have to dig in their heels.
& they are also being sued by multiple people and groups and companies actually. The 3 rings were forged after the 1 ring, not first. They were not in his sights or touch nor did he even know about them. And also guyladriel wasn’t a murderous Fëanorean either. But the note of the elven rings:
They were made last and without the knowledge of Sauron.
His touch never got to them, nor his malice poured into them. Made in secret so that whole story is thrown out the window as well. And making them first and having the obvious Sauron figure who wasn’t an elf to just be there when they’re making them and have his eye show up in the forge which wasn’t even the worst of it.
The greatest of elven smiths still around which is Celebrimbor doesn’t even know what alloying is.
Not to mention all their environmental scandals on top of bad CGI stuff.
Full of copy past crowds (I wish I was joking), and plagiarism of several films up the wazoo. It’s also getting sued by several people and groups. So many 1 to 1 shots of season 1 and game of thrones and other films that it’s not even funny anymore lol.
I’ll also remind you that they just ran an old sick horse til it died of cardiac arrest and then only had a ten min coffee break to loosely honour this horse. Not to mention Tolkien loved animals in a deep way. They also have been causing environmental damage one of which being King Charles ancient forest to make a set. It’s scandal after scandal. And the fire in studio that took four hours to put out with firemen for yet another example.
(Note; Isildur being on this show in the timeline these hazily depicted events would mean Isildur is over 3000 years old by the time of the last alliance that began the third age when it ended. Lol. That doesn’t make sense now does it?).
So many people made videos over the last two or three years alone regarding the series got them to read the books and then they got very confused first. Then upset when they found out that nothing of the show was I. The books at all. Only twisted and warped things full of inserted politics and themes that Tolkien was no fan of.
PS they don’t have the rights to the Silmarillion nor anything much of the second age let alone the first. Only the trilogy books and their appendices….
Remember that they also plagiarized tonnes of films in nontasteful instead of true a homage way…
“tempest in me” but when threatening Fëanorean level bloodshed in the court of Númenor was from Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth role which was done with grace and poise of a veteran actress(which doesn’t even sound like anything those of the great chill house of Finarfin would even act like.
Again it’d be best to put Elrond there due to Elros. But ooook let’s make girlboss do everything. Even if it continues to make zero sense. 😍
fact they downplayed Elendil who’d never say to “forget the past”, Gil-Galad and Finrod is beyond infuriating and not explaining Elwing, Elronds mother beyond just showing her as a swan was pure LOLism. Like. What’s worse is Grandpabimbor…. Let’s not forget good ol’ Guyladriel either. The LOTR version of Star Wars’ Rey! Guyladriel the Female Fëanor without any of his charms and subtleties and wit… just the bloody violent rages…
They lost alot of viewers after their bait and switch behaviour. Hundreds reported shenanigans on their app where it’d force you to watch and episode twice in variously described circumstances. Bribed people left and right with things like that screening. Even the official critics fell asleep.
Many longtime film analysts along with actors and film students/professionals give basic criticism and in depth look at the editing and so forth which causes it to fall flat on its face. Abandons plot left and right. Full of member berries. Just because we got fake Tom Bombadil doesn’t mean we’ll flip onto our backs to play with the jingling keys. Balrog wasn’t awoken until thousands of years later. They’re horridly depicted scenarios which often aren’t canon: were separated by hundreds of years. Some of them by thousands. Not cool. Amazon is known to be corrupt.
Shippey met Tolkien once, they talked about rugby
It feels like your criticism often touches more on the "politics" of the situation rather than the actual grave thematic deviations taken by Amazon. The use of "Guyladriel" and the comparison to Rey shows me that your criticisms often stem from a Critical Drinker adjacent viewpoint(blaming the sociopolitical landscape rather than the modern capitalist landscape which viewed Tolkien's work as ip to compete with other major fantasy shows, not as a second world with it's own rich culture, history, and nature that exists within the mindscape of imagination), because the inarguable truth is that Galadriel from the show is more archetypal feminine than the actual book character. For starters the character is over a foot shorter at 5'3, less powerful, and less confident in Arda and it's people. The problem is not that Galadriel knows how to use swords in the shows(It's not the biggest stretch to believe that Galadriel would most likely have some grasp of swordsmanship on at least a novice level, even if she would eschew any use of weapons), the problem is that she became more of a Eowyn archetype, a woman having to desperately prove her strength in a world of men. The actress chosen for Galadriel even looks like an illustration I found of Eowyn, and the entire thing feels like the writers and executives believing that women television viewers would react better to a woman being forced to prove herself both physically and mentally in a patriarchal society, rather than a wise women whom is fully assured in herself and in people. I understand why they made this choice, the same reason why Aragorn became a self doubting ranger who needs to believe in himself and realize his true position as a king rather than the Arthurian styled true and king who knows his purpose as in the book. However, unlike Aragorn, it feels like the crux of Galadriel was lost in translation, and in all purposes feel like a different character completely, as shown by her being fooled by Sauron not just once but twice.
However, I do agree with the glaring lore changes that were not for streamlining for the medium of television, but as a way for mindlessly attempting to garner nostalgia for Lord of the Rings, which utterly makes no sense. It feels like even Jackson, let alone Amazon, do not realize that LOTR is not the be all and end all in the world. LOTR is not what the history of middle earth is building up to, it is just another piece of history in Arda, and history will continue after the events of the story ends. The prevailing problem is that the executives wanted to have a Seasons 1-4 Game of Thrones level series while also having a strong female warrior at the helm. It's not the first time people used the legendarium to tell a unique story that is also 100% against Tolkien's writings, with the major one being the Middle Earth: Shadow series. Celebrimbor is turned into Feanor basically and is given a family to give him motive to be a against Sauron, which he did not need in the actual Legendarium. Celebrimbor also made the one ring himself, not Sauron. The main character, Talion, is a Gondorian ranger who is rejected from death and then bonds with Celebrimbor's wraith, something literally impossible. Talion was also leading Gondor in defending the black gates of Mordor, despite the story taking place in between The Hobbit and LOTR. Those are the less egregious changes, and yet despite this skewering of Tolkien's Legendarium, it is still positively seen due to it's gameplay and the characterization of the Orcs being reflected within the gameplay, which is the inarguable heart of the game. Ring's of power's problem is not that they fundamentally altered the world of Tolkien, it's that they did not have anything of their own merit to gift the audience in exchange. The overall presentation is bland, and either feels like nostalgia bait for both the books and Jackson's interpretation of the Legendarium while jarringly simultaneously trying to create a wholly unique version of Middle Earth different from both Tolkien's and even Jackson's Arda that will be remembered by the masses not familiar with the greater Legendarium. It is in this in which the series fails, not in making Galadriel a supposed "girlboss", but in removing all believable authoritativeness and wisdom from the character, and shows a lack in belief in both Tolkien's story and their own.
I don’t mind the show doing freedom of interpretation, but moreso that it misses the points that make the stories appealing. There was some interesting things happening the very first episodes and sadly they quickly went for a weird accelerated action route. They needed to make something a bit more deep, take their time, and take some risk to do something different. I feel the sopranos had some episodes whose whole purpose was to set a character’s motivations or mental state, and when reading fellowship, we really get a feeling of who Sam is through all the stories in the travels, so the payoff at the end is worth it. This show misses that a lot.
The issue with RoP is that the team making it is absolutely, hopelessly green and too inexperienced to deal with a project like this. None of them has written a script or screenplay so not only can't they write something that would work, they don't even have anyone around them telling them when they're writing nonsense because everyone is just as clueless.
I don't expect the future seasons (if they will come to be) to be any better than the first two,probably the opposite will be true. They have made a foundation out of sand and now they're trying to build on top of it. Even a skilled writer would have a hard time fixing a show after two seasons of utter nonsense, the people that made the nonsense to begin with definitely can't
9:37 You just confirmed everything that he is saying in defense of the show is wrong. His argument is against head canon. Most writers revise things. But not to the point where a valid argument is that there is no base lore or canon to go by.
Thank you, Joshua, for this masterclass video on a very controversial topic. You must be a fantastic lawyer.😁👍
Yes there is canon the Hobbit revised edition and the Lord of the rings. Everything published posthumously isn't
So is it canon that Bandobras Took invented golf? Is it canon when the Appendices say the only Elves to have golden hair are the house of Finarfin, even though this was clearly intended to mean the only Noldor to have golden hair are the house of Finarfin, since obviously the Vanyar also have it, and even on top of all of that Glorfindel is golden-haired and there's no indication he's descended from Finarfin?
Is the Song of Earendil canon even though the published version was probably a mistake and Tolkien had intended another version of it to be used in that Rivendell chapter?
Very well reasoned and well said.
This is a great video and your thoughtful analysis of these hyperbolic online takes is one thing I show up for - thank you!
If Tolkien himself never wrote any other versions, then in my opinion that's canon. Rings of Power has Sauron dying a death OTHER than the death in Numenor and on the slopes of Mount Doom. I know what canon is when I see it, and Sauron dying two deaths in all his millennia of existence before the War of the Ring is canon. At no time is coming back from the death of his fana anything easy and instantaneous for Sauron as shown to be in RoP. Also this death occurs before the forging of the One. We know of no other instance of a maia dying violently and against his/her will having their fana body destroyed functionally, so we don't know if Sauron is a special case because of the One, ie able to self-resurrect when other maia can't, but it sure does seem like the answer is they can't, as no balrogs ever did as far as we know....I include this second consideration (was Sauron a special case?) just to point out how stupidly complicating and honestly simply not fitting canon adding another death for Sauron is. If I had known nothing else about the RoP series except that they were going to do that, I would have shunned the series based on that datum alone.
It's also clear what is NOT canon, such as Gandalf arriving in Middle Earth alone in a fireball, and he had amnesia when he arrived. It's clear that when he arrived with the others, his appearance was that of an old man....not someone who looked younger.
Mate changing something, doesnt account as Canon. Nobody would know about the changes. Only the end product counts. We know about his changes because of his son, and all the work he produced past Tolkiens death. Do you realise a text goes through various stages before you feel comfortable publishing the end product? Even me writing this, I deleted and reedited the text multiple times. That doesnt mean there are different versions of a single thought I produced. Unless the Professor specifically mentions something, two versions of this, thats ow you interpret that. That is not canon. Some stuff we werent meant to see. Obviously is a blessing having all the notes and scribles of Tolkien and all the thoughts and ideas he had during his time of writing, but again the end published material is what constitutes as canon.
You are being contradictory. J.R.R. Tolkien published two works related to Middle Earth, the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. If only material published by the original author is canon, then Silmarillion is non-canon. Cristopher Tolkien published Silmarillion along with a whole host of works based on manuscripts, notes and scribbling written by J.R.R., so if everything published before and after the death of the author is canon, then the scribblings and notes and all the little things he wanted to be different are also canon.
Everyone agrees that Hobbit and LotR are canon, neither this video nor anything or anyone else disoutes this. The issue is deciding which parts of the works finished and published by Christopher are canon
@@exantiuse497 _>"J.R.R. Tolkien published two works related to Middle Earth, the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings."
@@exantiuse497 Honestly Christopher and his dad mind as well be the same person though. Using a technicality here is disingenuous on your part; Christopher had been working on reconciling the entirety of the Legendarium (first with his father and then by himself) for nearly 30 years by the time the Silmarillion was published in 1975. They even had the same position at Oxford.
This was a very good video. You said some really valuable things, especially about how we should chill out and be more careful about criticizing each other. It helps that you mention that Corey Olsen is just such a positive guy and all. I certainly am one who is tempted to criticize him severely, even from the start I didn't disagree with him about his basic point that there is not any agreed upon standard for what people might regard as Tolkien Cannon. What really bothered me about the Olsen interview was that it seemed his point was being used as a way to justify things like having the Stranger be Gandalf. Now you've pointed out a way that he could be "Gandalf", and I need to think about that. But up until now I've maintained that Olórin may very well have visited Middle-earth a number of times before he arrived embodied in a physical human form by ship in the Third Age, BUT before that he would not have been the wizard "Gandalf" and he would not have had a physical human body. Travel back and forth between Aman and Middle-earth is relatively easy if you are basically an immaterial Angelic Spirt. But you point out that nothing in the "lore" actually rules out that he could have become incarnate in the Second Age and then physically travelled back and forth: still to me highly unlikely but as you indicate, impossible to definitely rule out. So, thank you for shedding light on this for me. But it still irks me we could have had the Stranger be a Blue Wizard, something a lot of people, perhaps even casual fans might have enjoyed I think.
how is RoP not cannon - 1. it breaks the timeline - not only that of the 2nd Age but heavily also that of the 3rd Age - things cannot happen when they should in the 3rd Age - e.g. Elrond's children cannot be born when they should according to Tolkien's official timeline early in the 3rd Age as their mother - if not born yet in RoP - would be far too young to bear them when she should. Tolkien tinkered with his timeline making Elldadan and Elrohir be born slightly later then originally, but still they have have to be born soon into the 3rd Age. As elves do not bear children in times of war the window of "peaceful times" at the beginning of the 3rd Age is too short to allow both Celebrian and her children be born and grow up at the basically very same time.(also this would make Celebrian functionally a teen bride, basically the same generation as her own children). 2. it would be impossible for Gandalf to trust Saruman, as he would have been already faced with on of the five Istari having betrayed their mission. He would be far more weary. 3. Galadriel would no let a simple hobbit leave her realm to face off Sauron alone. She would be the leader of that party. 4. There is no valid way in RoP for Ar-Pharazon to attack Aman by an armada if there is gate in the sky that has to open for a ship to let it in.
The biggest way it is not "canon" is:
It is not Tolkien.
That was a nice argument, Tolkien Lore. But have you considered that, because Corey has defended _Rings of Power,_ I am emotionally obligated to pretend Corey was wrong about canon even though you have thoroughly demonstrated he was right?
The definition Olsen gave: _"A Canon is an authoritative list of Works, generally agreed upon by some group of people whose authority to do so is broadly accepted."_
What is the source for this definition? Or did Olsen make it up?
And Olsen defending or liking A-RoP is not particularly relevant.
What he falsely claims Tolkien did or did not say or when he mischaracterizes what Tolkien wrote is relevant. He does that repeatedly in his apologetics for A-RoP. And he does that outside of his A-RoP apologetics as well.
I bet somewhere in Prof Olsen’s back catalogue you could find pretty much the same definitions and arguments put forth as he had now. And it would be an interesting standalone discussion about Tolkien’s works.
But that would be before RoP, when less people ‘cared’.
"Canon", for me, is everything that the author has written. Whether it was published before or after his death, it does not matter. Also the fact that there are different version of a storyline and/or character, it's not a problem. I consider that to be part of his work. However, the fact that Tolkien was "toying" with this or that idea, does not mean that somebody else has the right to "toy" with his ideas, change or add some more. That, for me, it is NOT acceptable, and I do not consider as an adaptation of Tolkien's work. That, at best, is a new fiction "inspired" by....
You can choose to adapt whatever "version" that Tolkien wrote about any given character, and/or event. I have no problem with that. But in that case, two thing need to happen; a. Tell the audience on what book/work of Tolkien the story you are adapting is taken from; b) You stick to what the author has already written. Tolkien is dead know, and this is what we have. We should preserve it, not play around with it like it is free for all.
Corey Olsen knows very well why a good portion of the fandom are unhappy (to put it mildly) with ROP. He is just playing with words in order to justify the Amazon garbage. You may consider him an "optimist", I consider him an Amazon asslicker.
The argument about Tolkien changing his mind about something is moot, because then nothing would be certain, sicne *technically* Tolkien could change his mind about it. So no. One can argue about topics that we know off that Tolkien experimented with different ideas etc., but the last chronologically last thing Tolkien wrote about a subject has to be understood as being how he wanted it. Since otherwise stuff like Steampunk Numenor would be on the table again.
Tolkien's work is his work. The more literal the adaptation, the better. The true artist can master cinematography, direction, production, special effects in Tolien's world. The words, themes, stories are already there. To change those is the ego.
If you fill in gaps he didnt cover it has to be fan fiction.
@@waltonsmith7210True, but fanfiction doesn't need to contradict what Tolkien's work.
Very well put!!
@@Lothiril It does have to add in new stuff, though. (Imagine a War of Wrath adaptation that literally only included the scanty stuff covered in that half of a chapter, even though we would obviously wonder what a lot of characters who weren't mentioned were doing over the course of it.) And any time you add in new stuff, someone is going to think it was not sufficiently Tolkienesque enough.
Lets just put Tolkien aside for a moment and consider 'canon' in literature. It is considered and accepted to be what the author published or wrote, I'd accept a close editing by a second party and good translations (which always paraphrase) ... think of how many printings of the Iliad/Odyssey there are, both in verse and prose, long after the authors death.
There is no 'official' authority that licenses printing of most authors once they're dead or after the publishing house contract runs out. So anyone can then in most cases effectively publish anything based on their 'interpretation' of the authors works. Describing that 'interpretation' as 'canon' would be to intentionally mis-use the meaning of the word based on the first premise, that it is only the work published or written by the author. It is merely semantics to thus interpolate that as 'there is no such thing as canon'.
In this case, regarding Gary Olsen, whether you personally take that as lazy phrasing, editing with bad intent or intentional bending of the meaning for personal gain is up to the viewers' interpretation.
Getting back to the Tolkien family ... I doubt that Christopher would have let this happen; but JRR's dead, Christopher's dead and the Estate probably desires an income ... sad but true. Personally I think JRR would have been okay with his work still making an income for his grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren ... although I'll never watch RoP.
I hate how fandoms have come to focus so much on canon. Fandoms of all types argue over it religiously and it makes me cringe. Works should be able to stand on their own regardless of their canon status. RoP as an adaptation fails in a lot of ways, but probably wouldn't get as much hate as it does if it was just a good show regardless of its faithfulness to the source material.
10:00 My biggest complaint with RoP.
Those writers can't even write a story that matches up with itself.
---------------
And that's my biggest complaint, as I have been saying since before S1 - when everyone was all mad seeing Galadriel in armour - I don't mind changes, as long as the story is good.
But sadly the RoP turned out to be an incoherent mess. I am still open minded to the War of Rohirrim though.
@@eugene8498
Yes. WotR and The Hunt for Gollum are our only chance to see something Tolkienian.🤞🙏
You can make the point that there is no firm Tolkien canon. Obviously the published Hobbit and LotR, appendices included, are absolutely canon. The Silmarillion is pretty firmly canon. Anything else collected by Christopher is more or less deleted scenes/production material.
Thing is it's very easy to tell what ISN'T canon. And fan fiction and fan filmed productions definitely aren't. Whether it's a college kid writing Aragorn x Legolas erotica, or fans filming a Hunt For Gollum fan film, or a streaming service making a multimillion dollar series, or even Peter Jackson throwing Aragorn over a cliff or turning Faramir into a douche.
I already explained why it’s dangerous even to say the Hobbit and LOTR are “absolutely” canon.
with the main story framed by biased characters, the canon is already in flux
One thing is for sure, the Rings of Garbage is NOT CANON!
Yes but canon doesn't exist, we established that now
Tolkien Geek, it was a dumb thing for Olsen to say, even in context.
There absolutely is a recognized corpus of work that is broadly considered canonical in Tolkien. And you even tacitly acknowledged this for how angry you got at the Amazon show’s lore-rape in S1 when it led you to quit watching altogether.
I mean why’d you get upset? It’s because you intuitively knew that they were knowingly changing Tolkien’s work to suit their own agenda. Period.
*Note: “youtube is hiding comments and if people want to read the full comments, you may need to sort the comment section by 'Newest First'”
And I explain why that’s still legitimate in the video.
@@TolkienLorePodcast yes but what Olsen was really implying by his statement is that Amazon’s changes, no matter how ridiculous, are actually all legitimate because Tolkien only published the LOTR in his lifetime and therefore no firm “canon” was established.
I find this argument utterly ridiculous as CLEARLY the major themes and motives of Tolkien’s story remained consistent throughout his time writing about the world of Arda and middle earth.
What was the purpose of Tom Shippey on the show if not to fact check their ridiculous decisions against what amounted to clear and decisive changes to the recognized lore? Call it canon, call it lore, to me it’s merely a technicality to attempt to explain away the fact that the show deviated from anything remotely approaching Tolkein’s vision for his own work (as you right note starting around the ten minute mark).
Lastly, there clearly was enough of a thread to form a cohesive narrative that one could reasonably consider “canonical” by the mere fact that Christopher was able to publish a version of the silmarillion with a clear, distinct, linear narrative and fairly obvious themes.
One may quibble about character’s motives, Tolkein’s intentions for their “final” timelines in the chronology of the story, etc. But that’s wholly different from changing character’s races, deleting them from stories and transplanting them to places they never went, so on and so forth. And what Olsen implied by that statement was that the viewer need not to be worried by Amazon’s changes because Tolkien “technically had no canon anyway”. This is so obviously wrong and slanted on his part.. I like his work too but olsen’s just dead wrong on this.
@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726 what makes you think he’s saying that no change is too ridiculous?
@@TolkienLorePodcast because it’s in service of bringing legitimacy to a show that is (rightfully) being trashed by fans for its inauthenticity.
You and him obviously disagree about the quality of the show. You quit watching after S1 due in large part to its extreme deviation from recognized lore. You take Jackson to task over mere personality changes to characters but then want to give this abomination of a show the benefit of the doubt regarding their adherence to what is considered canonical Tolkien, I suppose to not seem too biased one way or another. And you do it in large part by quibbling over the meaning of the word “canon” when the knowledgeable ones here have already told you that “canon” simply means all the works of an author. Given that that is the definition of canon, as such, Tolkien DOES have an established canonicity and Olsen is wrong. That’s all we are saying.
He said regarding a particular change, though, which actually is something Tolkien toyed with. And that’s why Olsen’s statement is correct, at least as a response to the criticisms of the show as violating “canon.” Tolkien held open the possibility of Gandalf (Olorin) in Middle-earth before the Third Age, and the Appendices don’t even contradict this. UT contradicts him going “East” but even there that means not past Nurnen. And I’m not giving the benefit of the doubt to the show or trying to look unbiased, I’m just pointing out what I think are objective facts and that we need to be careful in our language.
This site is not letting me post my responses to your specific quotes, possibly because it was too long.
In short:
the canon is locked in because both J.R.R. and his appointed literary executor are both dead and it therefore can't change anymore.
Not to mention whatever version is published becomes the canon, right up until a new version gets published.
We have understood what "canon" was since the days of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writings.
It's disturbing hearing a lawyer talking about "there's room in what wasn't specified" when conviction happens based on evidence of WHAT DID. If you're a defence lawyer, good for you. But if you're looking for conviction based on evidence - or for that matter, an investigator who cares about the evidence - you are terrifying in using this as a line of argument.
And you're telling others to eat humble pie and take a chill pill? It's almost been fun, but your next subscriber is going to have to take my place.
I’m pretty sure you’re responding to a caricature of what I said rather than what I actually said.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Well if this site had let me post the line-by-line quotes, you'd see otherwise. I copy-pasted your entire transcript, and then spent ages manually cleaning it up in order to respond to your very words.
If you insist, I can try splitting it up into sections and posting them. I kept a draft just in case.
What's your basis for your response?
You seem to be under the impression that I think anything goes as long as nothing is explicitly said about it. That is not my point at all, and I specifically say that there is still plenty of room to criticize ROP.
@@TolkienLorePodcast That's the impression that your wording gives.
YES you made your disapproval of RoP clearer later. Great. Fine.
The major thrust of your argument appeared as not a defence of RoP, but a multi-track defence of Corey Olsen.
I've got all that clear and I had it clear as I was reading through your video transcript. So NOW, let's consider a few other things:
1) is he not being paid by Amazon?
2) he's been Amazon video-edited BEFORE so he should be fully aware of what they'll do, including the hypothetical distortion of his message.
3) is he not saying similar things in his longer-form videos on channels HE CONTROLS?
4) as a supposed educator, why is he not speaking in a specific educational TERM-INTRODUCING manner?
A scientist has to take into account that the scientific-versus-popular definitions of the word "theory". Scientists call the study around gravity a "theory" because of the specific usage and definitions of the term; nobody in their right minds is going to argue against "gravity" though and our physics, industry, technology DEPEND on our understanding of the function and reliability of gravity. So at this point Olsen should be VIVIDLY aware of the danger of introducing new definitions of "canon".
With Star Wars and Sherlock Holmes, or Star Trek, or Doctor Who, we came to a VERY good understanding of levels of "canon".
Including the pyramidal statuses of "Tolkien's canon" versus the greater "Christopher Tolkien published canon" versus the Unpublished Unfinished Raw Notes versus stuff published by Free League or other ME-licenced properties. Versus the utter trash that Amazon's putting out.
And that CERTAINLY includes an understanding of Tolkien's revisions of his own work, then which of those hold final primacy.
Let's also mention something the site wouldn't let me earlier - the changing of canon, when, now? Now that both J.R.R. and Christopher have both passed away? NOBODY I mean absolutely NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY gets to change the canon of material at the top of that pyramid. Not least because THEY HAVE BOTH PASSED AWAY and NOBODY with any LEGAL (and irrelevant compared to the MORAL) rights has demonstrated any capability of doing the job competently.
And, as someone trying to communicate with you, I am absolutely checking the definition of "moral rights" especially as *I KNOW* my audience here is a lawyer. Wow, Look At Me Ma I'm More Professional And Responsible Than Olsen.
Because it DOES seem that he's taking the same kind of path Simon Tolkien is taking and for much the same reason, not to mention wiping his feet of the same material on the same mat. That is at the very least, just my summary of the apparent presentation. He CALLS himself "the Tolkien Professor" and remind me again how his academic credentials allow him to call himself and TRADE UNDER THE NAME of something so specific as "the Tolkien Professor"...? Because his BA was in English *and astrophysics*, but his MA, MPhil and PhD are in mediaeval literature, which are still not Tolkien studies. Who on the planet has a bigger right to be called "the Tolkien Professor" than, say, Tom Shippey, Cambridge B.A., M.A., Ph.D? What makes Olsen entitled to such a title?
You're defending a man who is enabling Amazon and RoP. That's the issue. Is this an overly high-level summary? Yes. Even given your specific responses here which I would accept for the discussion, HOW IS THE SUMMARY INCORRECT? How's that "caricature" claim looking now?
@@troffle I generally agree with your statement (though not really the 'levels of canon'), but:
_>"1) is he not being paid by Amazon?""2) he's been Amazon video-edited BEFORE so he should be fully aware of what they'll do, including the hypothetical distortion of his message."
First of all, Tolkien didn't want silly cults where they spoke his made-up languages.
Secondly, the problem with what you take an eternity to explain is that it's extremely primitive schoolboy thinking (making it a mutlidimensional disrespect to Tolkien), and that in no way it goes to explain his work or say anything of value on the issue. And it also ignores, for example, what he very explicitly said on the issue, which some critics have been smarter to quote beforehand. Indeed, you ignore that Tolkien wrote anything at all... (Which Corey Olsen subconsciously recognises, but doesn't want to admit, despite being unable to avoid it.)
Yes, he wrote different dates for this or that (often with a final decision, but who cares), or there are versions which have a few differences. He even deliberately wrote some stories in different forms, e.g. song or prose. (Gosh, darn it! Completely different!) But the stories are still recognisable, and even in "different versions" basically the same. Except in some cases for things which had been dropped or had been teenage drafts (the frame narrative concerning a human sailor who is told these stories). Except of course where they had been largely retained... (Gondolin)
You are hamstrung by some very shallow, one-note semantics. By some minor examples, you act like it would be almost impossible to identify any of Tolkien's fiction, and say anything about it, except that the manuscripts were his, trusting the publisher's word. Which is obviously utterly idiotic.
And that just to avoid the debate, whether one is intelligent enough to recognise a poorly written TV show as poorly written or not (which furthermore is an insult to Tolkien, by the way). This is the kind of idiotic debate which is typical for such people... Corey Olsen is an irrelevant academic and a poor example of one, irrelevant also for Tolkien, for that matter. Which was clear before, as his analyses are utterly banal and of no value. He just settled on a way to make money.
LotR canon is simply whatever Tolkein himself and Christopher put out. Full stop. Period.
The whole video is about that it isn't that simple.
Unfortunately, its not that simple.
Haven't seen the video but "it's not simple" just sounds a justification to alter and revise his works
@@Rakotino for what has been released in paper form? Yes it is.
@m0-m0597 Maybe watch the video before citicising what it's saying then?
Everything Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything Tolkien didn't wrote is not canon.
Putting Tolkien's versions and revisions of his own work at the same level of any fanfic is just dishonest.
Good thing I didn’t do that then.
Totally agree with you and I think Corey Olsen's explanation is more correct than not. The problem is that this answer comes to defend a bad faith actor, Amazon's ROP and its marketing, who's usually under attack from other bad faith actors from the other side. RoP is doing things very badly, Corey Olsen is acting in his channel as if it's the most Tolkienian thing he's ever seen and their detractors are acting as if they are the utmost authority of what is canon, what Tolkien would have thought/liked etc.
One thing I disagree with is being excited about slop. If you take whatever they serve you, don't expect to be served anything other than slop in the end. There's toxic negativity, but there's also toxic positivity
@@alexkats30 those being slandered as toxic aren’t at all though. Lmao. Apparently deep fake Gandalf roasts of ROP is toxic now too. We won’t now down to mediocrity for fear of being called racist or sexist lollll
@@Makkaru112 There are 100% toxic LOTR ragebaiters out there who offer only surface level criticism and racism and sexism. That doesn't mean it's everyone and it is 100% wrong from Amazon's part to characterize every criticism and critic as that. I am a critic of the show but I won't consider myself one of those people. If you don't either, that's great, why are you getting mad as if I attacked you personally? BTW, I watch Charlie Hopkinson too, he's very funny and talented and not at all the kind of bigoted critic I'm talking about.
I agree with this sentiment the most of everything Ive read and said something similar in my own comment. I might actually mostly agree with Olsen in a vacuum. The problem is he is defending this Amazon show in a way that makes him seem disingenuous and motivated by financial gain or more recognition for his own stuff. RoP is ultimately a bad show that doesn't care about Tolkien's works. It isn't really faithful to any of the versions of the stories Tolkien wrote, or at worst is just completely making stuff up because they don't have the rights secured for the material they would need. To then have their chief Tolkien expert who is on Amazon payroll put out a video saying that " there was never really a canon anyways so you mind as well enjoy what we're giving you" comes off as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to save face, regardless of how correct the statement actually is with Tolkien's complete body of work.
Brilliant! Well done! Only two things to correct. (A) in Nature of Middle Earth there is an incubation period and Elrond's wedding was dated too close to the birth of children, iirc. (B) It's not true that ROP is bad, it's actually good. Also, adaptations can make changes that change the story, and it's not clear cut what is and is not part of the essential core. Thank you!
Whether ROP is good or bad is in some measure a matter of opinion, but I think on a number of objective points it’s at best sub-par.
_>"in Nature of Middle Earth there is an incubation period and Elrond's wedding was dated too close to the birth of children, iirc"
If you select a particular definition of canon, then yes, Professor Tulip can declare themselves to be the grand wizard of tolkien lore, and thanks to the intravenous application of somewhat tainted heroin, can imagine Rings of Power somehow fits into the works of the good professor.
However.
If you use the common definition, then the author's works are canon, and if they wish, they can set up secondary canon and so on. If you use that definition, then it doesn't matter if Amazon declares that Tolkien worshipped Satan, and that Galadriel fellated every orc in Middle Earth. It didn't happen, it doesn't matter.
As for the Tolkien expert - "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
He might want to buy a hernia belt. Just in case...
@@BrettCaton what European Lore had to say was wondrously full of high vocabulary that the world needs to reacquaint themselves with. ❤️😅
"My memory may be faulty" is a clue. Since the conceit of the books is that it is a remembered history from an occasionally unreliable witness (the red book), there is plenty of slack available. You only have to look at more recent history with misremembered memoires and myths which are constantly being revised although the myth remains in the public conscious to see this.
I'll probably need to keep my head down after this. I've actually really enjoyed the 2nd season of RoP. It is a superior piece of fan fiction and people are free to not watch it and disregard it if they so wish.
U571 was historical bunkem which trashed the actual story but it was still an enjoyable film to watch. Pearl Harbour (sans the romantic subplot) was more historically accurate but awful. 😂
@@wswaine the review by someone who knows the lore inside and out = Just Some Guy. His recent videos were awesomeness.
@@wswaine Amazon waited until Christopher Tolkien died early in the production of its DumpsterFire (before they went against what they promised), his "demand" was that Amazon could use the Appendices to make the show, but they couldn't change the lore. As soon as Christopher died, Amazon delayed the show for reshoots, fired Tom Shippey who was the lead Tolkien scholar & friend of Tolkien himself; they wanted Jackson on the team.
PeterJackson asked for the scripts then they ghosted him. Then later when asked about it he basically told them good luck.. You can blame this garbage show on Simon Tolkien (who Amazon used to get around all the laws and protections set around the estate and JRR Tolkien’s legacy), its stink doesn't reach Christopher.
Firstly: they merge events (from thousands of years of history & build up towards several events but puts them all into one moment as if it’s happening in the same few years without time jumps or anything.) Guyladriel the murderous one dimensional girlboss heroine version of Galadriel never met Miriel(one of Aragorn’s ancestors) because, as an elf, she would have been sacrificed to Morgoth by the King's Men.
The hobbits and Gandalf never met in the 2nd Age because Gandalf was in Valinor till the 3rd Age.
Miriel wasn’t even born yet. She was born 2000 years before the rings of power era. A precursor to other events to come in later ages.
Also Elendil would never say “forget the past and toss it aside.” That’s the whole thing about the Faithful Númenoreans!!!
Faithfulness to what’s good. To their elf friends. To the Valar, to Eru Îlluvatar(The One AllFather), The way Galadriel acts like Fëanor when he isn’t seeing straight such as how she threatened bloodshed in the highest court of Númenor! The way she isn’t tall, the way she fights rookies doesn’t make her look strong.
Should have had her spar with Elendil who was greater than Miriel in many ways even as far as lineage goes too! (Canon has her as a grandson or son so…)
Have her spar with those greater Numenoreans and let the rookies laugh at their masters being vested by an elf woman holding back from actually hurting them! Now that’d be cool.
(Remember. Their whole mantra was to write the book Tolkien never wrote”. Also watch them fake super fans. And then watch their social media that had nothing Tolkien on it ever. Like…. It’s painfully obvious what’s going on here. Same formula towards other titles. They’re just trying to bank on the brand of which that’s the only reason they did this.
Just watch Peter Jackson’s new movie coming out and the War of the Rohirim. You’ll see that Brian Cox is involved In it along with Philipa Boyens as well as Actor for Èowyn named Miranda Otto. Fran Walsh I also believe is Involved as well!
Watch George The Giant Slayer’s first video regarding the war of the rohirrim. It was beautiful. And he has a wonderful soul too. When I say first video.
I don’t mean very first uploaded video though lol. )
There was also no Adar. No poppy. No Nori. No fake Gandalf who literally didn’t come the way he was supposed to which introduces Círdan. And since they screwed up the themes and lore so badly they have to dig in their heels.
& they are also being sued by multiple people and groups and companies actually. The 3 rings were forged after the 1 ring, not first. They were not in his sights or touch nor did he even know about them. And also guyladriel wasn’t a murderous Fëanorean either. But the note of the elven rings:
They were made last and without the knowledge of Sauron.
His touch never got to them, nor his malice poured into them. Made in secret so that whole story is thrown out the window as well. And making them first and having the obvious Sauron figure who wasn’t an elf to just be there when they’re making them and have his eye show up in the forge which wasn’t even the worst of it.
The greatest of elven smiths still around which is Celebrimbor doesn’t even know what alloying is.
Not to mention all their environmental scandals on top of bad CGI stuff.
Full of copy past crowds (I wish I was joking), and plagiarism of several films up the wazoo. It’s also getting sued by several people and groups. So many 1 to 1 shots of season 1 and game of thrones and other films that it’s not even funny anymore lol.
I’ll also remind you that they just ran an old sick horse til it died of cardiac arrest and then only had a ten min coffee break to loosely honour this horse. Not to mention Tolkien loved animals in a deep way. They also have been causing environmental damage one of which being King Charles ancient forest to make a set. It’s scandal after scandal. And the fire in studio that took four hours to put out with firemen for yet another example.
(Note; Isildur being on this show in the timeline these hazily depicted events would mean Isildur is over 3000 years old by the time of the last alliance that began the third age when it ended. Lol. That doesn’t make sense now does it?).
So many people made videos over the last two or three years alone regarding the series got them to read the books and then they got very confused first. Then upset when they found out that nothing of the show was I. The books at all. Only twisted and warped things full of inserted politics and themes that Tolkien was no fan of.
PS they don’t have the rights to the Silmarillion nor anything much of the second age let alone the first. Only the trilogy books and their appendices….
Remember that they also plagiarized tonnes of films in nontasteful instead of true a homage way…
“tempest in me” but when threatening Fëanorean level bloodshed in the court of Númenor was from Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth role which was done with grace and poise of a veteran actress(which doesn’t even sound like anything those of the great chill house of Finarfin would even act like.
Again it’d be best to put Elrond there due to Elros. But ooook let’s make girlboss do everything. Even if it continues to make zero sense. 😍
fact they downplayed Elendil who’d never say to “forget the past”, Gil-Galad and Finrod is beyond infuriating and not explaining Elwing, Elronds mother beyond just showing her as a swan was pure LOLism. Like. What’s worse is Grandpabimbor…. Let’s not forget good ol’ Guyladriel either. The LOTR version of Star Wars’ Rey! Guyladriel the Female Fëanor without any of his charms and subtleties and wit… just the bloody violent rages…
They lost alot of viewers after their bait and switch behaviour. Hundreds reported shenanigans on their app where it’d force you to watch and episode twice in variously described circumstances. Bribed people left and right with things like that screening. Even the official critics fell asleep.
Many longtime film analysts along with actors and film students/professionals give basic criticism and in depth look at the editing and so forth which causes it to fall flat on its face. Abandons plot left and right. Full of member berries. Just because we got fake Tom Bombadil doesn’t mean we’ll flip onto our backs to play with the jingling keys. Balrog wasn’t awoken until thousands of years later. They’re horridly depicted scenarios which often aren’t canon: were separated by hundreds of years. Some of them by thousands. Not cool. Amazon is known to be corrupt.
Miriel is not one of Aragorn’s ancestors.
@@TolkienLorePodcast They do share common ancestry together.
@Don9872 yes but that’s not the same thing?
Why are you trying so hard to stay in the good graces of that smarmy sellout? His "no canon" argument was obviously a disingenuous strawman designed to try and discredit any and all criticism aimed at Rings of Power. He's done nothing but harm to Tolkien's legacy ever since he decided to sell his soul to Amazon and play the role of sycophantic cheerleader for their mediocre television show. Other Tolkien content creators have rightfully criticized him for this and disassociated themselves from him, so it's disappointing to see you still white knighting for him like this.
I’m not trying to stay in his good graces (not sure I ever was), nor am I white knighting for him. Nor do you have evidence of the multiple incendiary claims about him.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Evidence? You just need to watch his videos on Rings of Power to verify for yourself how he's become a sycophantic cheerleader for Amazon's mediocre adaptation. It's beyond self-evident. Now when I called him a sellout or said he sold his soul to Amazon, I wasn't necessarily suggesting he is straight up receiving money from Amazon to act the way he does. Of that I have no evidence, true. But it hardly matters at this point -- whether he's being paid for it or not, I (and many others) have already lost all respect for him.
@ahimsamovies4484 or maybe he’s just trying to enjoy what’s good in it?
Saying RoP is badly written fan fiction that directly contradicts Tolkien,is not in any way trying to stay in anyone's good books.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Again, it sounds like you haven't watched his content on it much. It goes well beyond trying to look on the bright side or taking a glass half full perspective. He will not utter a single bad word about it, and will bend over backwards to try and discredit any and all criticism of it, no matter how legitimate.
If you've listened to any of his podcasts prior to Rings of Power (and I know you have), you know he has often criticized various things about Peter Jackson's movies. Which is perfectly fine, you do as well, and so do I, because they're certainly not flawless. Only you and I are also capable of criticizing Rings of Power for its many, many flaws. But Olson absolutely refuses to do so in any way, shape or form (even though he is perfectly okay with criticizing Jackson's films), and when called out on that, he excuses himself with, "Well I'm offering insight and analysis, not reactions".
Which is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that, because the fact that he's doing analysis somehow doesn't stop him from saying, in those same analyses, that things from Rings of Power were "awesome" or "really cool" or saying "I loved this and that scene" or whatever. But he will never, ever say that something was bad or poorly executed or nonsensical, or anything negative. It's *almost* as if he's deeply and inherently biased and committed to fawning over the show no matter what, to the point that his analyses of it become extremely compromised and virtually impossible to take seriously. And naturally and inevitably, that ends up tarnishing his image and reputation in the eyes of many within the community.
Olsen's position is based on very nuanced view of what is and is not canon inside of Tolkien's writings, and is misused, and what makes it even worse, is that he formulated it in a way that anticipated its misuse by people, who intentionally rewrote and therefore vandalized Tolkien's work.
That's what makes this so insidious so treacherous. He intentionally thought of an argument, that would support the vandalization of Tolkiens work and go against the people, who actually care about Tolkien's world.
You’re ascribing an awful lot of motives you can’t substantiate.
@TolkienLorePodcast you are right that I don't know his motive for saying what he's said. Also, one should not look for bad intent when the same thing can be explained by incompetence or ineptitude.
However, the creators are multiple times on record, saying that they aim to change the source material.
The last presumed motive was that people actually care about Professor Tolkiens work. Sure, there will be those that are against them just for them being them, but I, for example, really do care about it, and I think that it is a pity that the first time this part of the lore has been adapted it has been done this badly because some people cannot help but current day a fantasy masterpiece. I really want other people to wonder as I wondered at the golden age of second age. Look what we got. They are portraying orks as good guys, which is atrocious. If you accept it as true, then you really should look at Gimlis and Legolases contests in different way.
Tolkien's legendarium, like the Bible's canonical texts, includes multiple perspectives and variations on certain events or characters, yet maintains a cohesive framework. In Tolkien’s world, the variations on the Blue Wizards reflect differing theories on their roles, but both interpretations can coexist as they fit within Tolkien’s broader mythos. In contrast, Gandalf appearing in the Second Age lacks support in any of Tolkien’s writings, which explicitly place his arrival in the Third Age. This distinction between "variation within canon" and "invention outside canon" is crucial and is why fans often find the lore deviations in The Rings of Power jarring.
Likewise, in the biblical canon, the existence of multiple accounts of creation or the Gospels doesn't imply an “anything goes” approach to additions. These texts are internally validated by long-standing tradition and accepted as part of a larger theological framework. Introducing something like a radically alternative creation myth-such as one where a demiurge creates the world-would not be considered canon. Similarly, Tolkien’s works have an underlying philosophical and cosmological consistency that many fans feel should guide adaptations, even if Tolkien left room for some ambiguity. This is why Olsen's stance feels unmoored to fans who see these deviations as departing from Tolkien’s intent rather than expanding on his themes.
In sum, recognizing the difference between Tolkien's variations and outright inventions respects the integrity of his world and mirrors the way canonical religious texts hold together different accounts without allowing for arbitrary additions. This approach preserves the identity and essence of Tolkien’s carefully crafted mythology.
It’s not true that Gandalf (Olorin) showing up in the second age has NO support. And I’m definitely not arguing that anything goes.
Sounds like some corporate cope a vandal might use.
Yeah I'm not impressed with "ackchewally wut I REELY meant was..." arguments.
What is the canonical appearance of a balrog? None, but there's hundreds of variations on how the balrog could look. This is just an example, but a very explored one, regarding Tolkien "canon". Tolkien wrote what he wrote, and it is often vague, and when you combine the vague with the curiosity of the reader, imagination fills in the rest. So whatever is "canon", depends on the reader. It's like coloring a coloring book - no filled coloring books will look like another filled coloring book. I call it the retrograde influence of the reader, when it comes to literature, but it's all over human communication. We are primed to interpret language abstractedly, we communicate concepts and limits, which is why we can communicate concepts really well while describing a picture in detail is extremely difficult. Allowing the reader to influence what he or she is reading is the secret ingredient to excellent literature, because it involves the reader; it engages and it forms a relationship between reader and story.
Although it is sort lf true thst there is no canon in Tolkien's works, that doesnt mean that adaptions can do whaterver they want or change whatever they want just because there is no canon.
Isn't this like at leas the 2nd time Corey's been 'misquoted' or edited-to-a-different-meaning?! I mean, "Fool me once", no?!
Olsen was not misquoted or edited out of context. He states in his OM&H #83 video that he insisted the statement be put in the Amazon video, and he had veto rights over it. He says he did so precisely to get a reaction, because he wanted to have a 'teaching moment'.
As for the previous time, I presume you mean the now infamous "Tolkien never said" IGN video...
He made numerous false assertions in that video. And the 'Out of Context' claim does not stand scrutiny when addressed in full, including his doubling down on his false assertion for months afterward.
The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books are the canon. To think otherwise is to not think.
So if someone took the Silmarillion and produced a dog's dinner of a show/film out of it, everyone should be happy and mellow about it because Silmarillion isn't canon? I believe most fans would disagree
So, you classify most of what Tolkien wrote as not canon?
True, I hate the word "canon" almost as much as the word "franchise".
A canon is a list of books, not their contents.
So we do have a list of books.
It's a list of acceptable books or doctrine, but who does the accepting?🤔
@Enerdhil In this case, JRRR and Christopher Tolkien.
@@str.77
Unfortunately, the truth is Simon Tolkien makes the decisions.😞
I think the concept of "canon" is a creation of the modern world. It may be that Tolkien never used the word outside of religion.
Well, "The canons of narrative art 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."
--- JRRT
@@eugene8498 There is a dictionary definition of canon: "a general rule or principle... standard or criterion" (Chambers). I think this is how Tolkien was using the word.
@@pwmiles56 Whatever that means in this context I think RoP is lacking anyway: rules, principles, and the core of the original.
c. the complete works, as of an author
Collins Dictionary
b: the authentic works of a writer
Merriam-Webster
all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person
Cambridge Dictionary
b : the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written
Britannica
a list of the books or other works that are generally accepted as the real work of a particular writer
Oxford Learner's Dictionary
@@Tar-Elenion
All good definitions.😁👍
The idea of "canon" in literature is cancer. It's applying to fiction the same standards as the catholic inquisition did to religion. Modern idea of canon destroys storytelling and our engagement with it. It is a symptom of capitalism and commodification of stories, where everything needs a label of officiality. Like the story was a product to be regulated by greedy actors.
The idea of canon in fandom mostly originated from Star Trek, so it's useful to quote Leonard Nimoy on the subject:
""Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae.bOpen your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."