[onepunchedman]

When you say European, except for the fact that Tolkien wrote the story, what part of the show thus far has given you an explicit European feel? Did the Harfoots resemble British subjects, or do the race of men have to be from the European continent because of their skin color? Which city did Lindon look like? If we're already in a fantasy setting, why is there such a focus on relating the setting of the fantasy to our own European history, rather than telling a good fantasy story. Can you not relate to the story if it isn't explicitly describing a historically accurate proto-Europe?

If the argument is that Middle Earth should reflect a proto-European history, should we just accept that everyone from the east are pictured as orcs; mindless, ugly, uncivilized brutes? Is everyone from Africa part of the Haradrim or the Easterlings? The comparison to a proto-Europe only works as long as you wilfully neglect the horribly racist parts of the comparison. Or are you okay with those parts too? If the addition of a black Harfoot, black elves, or Durin's wife being black is your critique of the show, then you should reflect on why you feel that way and why you're able to so easily excuse the clear racism in favor of defending "authenticity".

It's legit WILD to read some of the remarks about the show on reddit and IMDb. It's horribly racist rhetoric disguised as a defence of authenticity and staying true to Tolkien's work. If portraying the racist parts of Tolkien's work is * that * important, maybe we shouldn't make media based upon it?

[maxk42]

> When you say European, except for the fact that Tolkien wrote the story, what part of the show thus far has given you an explicit European feel?

"Middle Earth" was an old phrase used to refer to Western Europe in several Scandinavian languages. Tolkien, being a linguist, would have known this and chosen that turn of phrase deliberately.

[onepunchedman]

You are missing my argument completely. What I'm saying is that yes, Tolkien may have envisioned Middle Earth as proto-European fantasy, but when you're arguing for "historical accuracy", you can't pick and choose. You're arguing about skin color as if a) no people of color lived in Europe at the time, and b) you're completely avoiding touching on the origin of Tolkien's evil races and nations, and in particular orcs. If hobbits, men, and elves need to be white, then orcs necessarily need to be black and brown people, no? They need to be uncivilised brutes who only want to destroy with no mind of their own? That is a simplified depiction of Tolkien's works, but do you think that those prejudices hold, or that they should be depicted in modern media? If yes, then you are a bigot and a racist, and if no, it's WEIRD how the inclusion of people of color is where you're putting your foot down.

PS: read "you" as in the collective you, not you specifically.

[infamia]

> You're arguing about skin color as if a) no people of color lived in Europe at the time, and b) you're completely avoiding touching on the origin of Tolkien's evil races and nations, and in particular orcs. If hobbits, men, and elves need to be white, then orcs necessarily need to be black and brown people, no?

The problem with line of thought is that Lossarnach which mustered to Minas Tirith during the seige of Gondor were described as swarthy (i.e. dark skinned).

Also, the Easterlings were poignantly humanized by Sam.

"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind."

All of this is a far cry from the stark dark people bad racism you've posted about a couple of times now.

Finally, the orcs also had slanted eyes, did Tolkien also hate Asians? Are Orcs supposed to be African or Asian? Pegging orcs as "dark people" simply doesn't fit as orcs don't closely match any ethnic group in particular. Orcs aren't even a single race for that matter. In any case, dark skinned=bad sounds a lot like allegory, which Tolkien finds distasteful. It is my theory that due to the time we all live in, you are (subconsciously most likely) hammering a square racism peg in a round hold.

[ironcurtain]

Would you mind explaining how - even in this fantasy world - people living in closed societies would get wildly different features? Somehow elves are different from human who are different from gnomes - it there are 2-3 afro elves or afro-hobbits? That’s what’s jarring about “per quota” insertion of minorities - because it contradicts our experience. One can make southerons look Persian or Indian, but having a token minority is just laughable. And throwing around virtue signaling is not helping your argument.

[tptacek]

I'm pretty sure Shakespeare knew what a woman was, but they weren't cast in any of his plays. I doubt Tolkien would give a shit whether actors with dark skin played any of his characters.

[SunlightEdge]

Op here. So my arguement is looking more at fantasy TV/movies in general rather than a particular focus on lord of the rings per se. But it is part of a wider discussion on representation in the European fantasy genre. As you know, what I am arguing for is that, I think it would be good to continue to have some shows which are 'diverse' and other shows which follow a more tradional casting. Do both. My concern is that there is political/media pressure to push always for diverse castings in all European fantasy shows. And this could go against good storytelling.

If I'm watching a story about a Japanese Fantasy story - it will feel less immersive if you introduce a blonde character. Likewise with an Indian, or African story. Everyone would think this reasonable. What some people get upset about, is if we also say this about European fantasy stories. And I don't agree with this (the point that a tiny tiny fraction of people living in Europe may have been nonwhite in the 1400s and below I find mute quite frankly). I also find it... Not considerate to call someone racist for making this point. And quite frankly its a great example of where we are right now. Film and TV studios terrified in their casting decisions and feeling like they have to please the media etc. Nor am I convinced that global audiences want to see themselves in European fantasy stories. I don't want to see a blonde white guy (or black or Indian guy) in a Japanese Fantasy story etc. etc.

I do feel that including a multicultural diverse population in a European fantasy story does have a large risk of less immersion and I don't agree thats 'racist'. You can do it, but it's a different world and a different experience. What I'm arguing again, is fine do that. But not everything fantasy driven needs to be like that.

The lord of the rings trilogy was not diverse and quite frankly was astounding. Game of thrones was not diverse, and was astounding up to the final season.

The latter was savegly attacked by woke groups for not being diverse and I just so disagree with that view point.

Let's have diverse stories and let's have traditional too. There are lots of good fantasy stories by Western authors that do include diversity (fifth season, and Ursula la guin Wizard of the sea story etc.)

[pvaldes]

My bet is that the only reason to have "harfoots" is avoiding to pay for the use of the copyrighted word "hobbits" in the near future.

It sounds like a fart. Definitely lacking the talent of Tolkien to find the surgically precise word for each term, but I can understand the legal aspects of the need-for-control part.

[tegeril]

Tolkien also named and described the Harfoots, so why would they be any differently copyrighted?

[Tagbert]

I thought it was interesting from a linguistic perspective. These events are 3000-6000 years earlier than those of the Lord of the Rings. The languages would have changed in all that time. I spent time wondering how Harfoot might have evolved into Hobbit or how Hobbit might have arisen and replaced Harfoot.

[astrange]

If you want to hear some strange sounding names, you can look up the actual Westron names of the hobbits - Frodo Baggins and the other Shire names being an "English translation" from the Red Book of Westmarch. Sam's name is actually "Banazîr Galbasi", so maybe he's Turkish.

[rowanG077]

You honestly deny that middle earth is not based on Europe? Everything Tolkien wrote was drenched in that reference frame.

[Maursault]

Middle-Earth most definitely is not based on Europe and claiming such is unsupportable. The geography and map of Middle-Earth is absolutely nothing like Europe, no similarities whatsoever, and no geological process known could make it similar. On the other hand, Middle-Earth is strikingly similar to a mirror image of North America.

[rowanG077]

I didn't say based IN I said based ON. Those are similar sounding but completely different. The former implies it's actually based in the same country and lands as Europe. Whereas the later implies it's merely inspired by to some degree.

[Maursault]

Tolkien borrowed quite heavily from Scandinavian mythology, especially the epic Väinämöinen from Finnish mythology, and seems to have been obsessed with Odin from Norse mythology. Is that what you mean? Because claiming he based his fictional myths and his fantasy fiction on European myths and history is so vague and technically inaccurate that is must be false. Though Italy is firmly in Europe, describing lasagna as European food is at best misleading and at worst false.

Not for nothing, Europe is a continent. Whether you believe Tolkien based his works on or in Europe, both are false on their face. It doesn't even make sense, so please try to better articulate what you mean. Because you literally have argued that Tolkien based the continent of Middle-Earth on the continent of Europe, then you have waffled and changed your argument from in to on. Either way is nonsense. What you must have meant was Tolkien based his stories, not the element of his story setting, Middle-Earth, but the stories themselves, on history and mythology of the various peoples of Europe.

But, in fact, other than Scandinavian epics and myths, and specifically Finnish and Norse epics and myths, that is false.

If you can support your claim, you'd be more convincing. An example of some very similar non-Scandinavian European story found in Tolkien's work would drive your point home. But I am unaware of any example of, say, Italian or Romanian or Polish or Swiss or Danish folk stories or myths being borrowed by Tolkien. And we need not be so vague. Europe was never a single culture, but always many. And Tolkien was not writing to give Europe a history and mythology; that purpose was only for England.

[rowanG077]

If you don't believe Italy, or the Nordic countries are European I will not be able to convince you. Our world view is simply too different to come to an understanding.

[Maursault]

Why specify Europe? Why not just say the Solar System? Or the Western Spiral Arm of the Milky Way? Or the Local Group?

Inexplicably, you chose to be incredibly vague. Just because France is in Europe does not make Europe representative of France. You can say the Eiffel Tower is in the Milky Way, but this is overly broad and imprecise; it makes far more sense to say it is in France.

Similarly, Tolkien borrowed from very specific Scandinavian sources, and that is borrowed; his works are not based upon these sources nor upon ancient Scandinavian culture. To conflate Scandinavia with Europe is the same mistake as conflating France with the Milky Way.

Your claim that Tolkien based his works on Europe is incongruous because it is overly general and imprecise, and it is also a pretty good example of the vagueness fallacy.

[dnh44]

> Though Italy is firmly in Europe, describing lasagna as European food is at best misleading and at worst false.

I can’t understand what you mean by this at all and it sounds like an absurd thing to say. Can you please explain?

[onepunchedman]

You're not at all touching on my argument. Read my reply to maxk42.

[irrational]

Wasn’t the whole point of Lord of the Rings to provide a (made-up) mythology for Great Britain? Middle Earth is ancient Great Britain (or maybe ancient NW Europe) according to Tolkien.

[shadowgovt]

Do you have a citation on this assertion? I'm pretty sure when he said anything about it being a fake-prehistory, he said it was global prehistory.

He drew heavily from the European sources he knew, but I don't recall any implication that it was meant to be Britain or Europe only.

[irrational]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_in_Middle-earth

[shadowgovt]

According to this Wikipedia article,

""" In his 2004 chapter "A Mythology for Anglo-Saxon England", Michael Drout states that Tolkien never used the actual phrase, though commentators have found it appropriate as a description of much of his approach in creating Middle-earth. """

So this is critical interpretation and not something he literally said he intended. His quotes (also in the article) suggest he was drawing from English and Norse mythology, of course, but not that the cosmology of Middle Earth is solely English.

[pvaldes]

There is not such thing as a "medieval US" with American natives dueling with broad swords. Maybe in Las Vegas.

[shadowgovt]

Sorry, I can't wrap my head around how this comment relates to mine. Can you clarify?

[pvaldes]

>> Sorry, I can't wrap my head around how this comment relates to mine. Can you clarify?

> I don't recall any implication that it was meant to be Britain or Europe only.

LOTR has a few clear mentions to America but is about the feelings of an English literature professor and ex-soldier seeing the good old times, gorgeous nature and European mythology that he loved, being replaced and crushed by industrial development and world war.

The themes are universal, could be adapted to other places and other mythologies, but would lose part of its charm in the process.

Under a disguise of epic fantasy the book is basically a metaphor of twenty century Europe in war times, and is filled with details token directly from his real war experiences and depicted metaphorically or directly. The kind of details that you can't invent or wouldn't notice, unless you had experienced it first. Details like describing how the infantry traveling long distances by foot towards the battle field, get out of the path and start walking into the fresh grass bordering the road to alleviate their sore foot pain.

That experience, plus his obsession to consistence, religious background (christian humanism) and expertise in European myths, old languages and literature, blends all together in a complex history that conveys an incredible sense of realism and immersion rarely achieved by other epic fantasy books.

Tolkien don't needs to be lectured about including strong woman characters in his work, or about the need to talk more about ecology, compassion or racism. Those themes are exquisitely treated in the book yet that is filled with a sense of adventure and a sublime love for nature (to the extent to mention how the raising sun in a foggy day illuminates the spiderwebs in the path).

About racism. This is not "uncle tom's cabin" by Peter Jacksons sake!. Most of the book describes different races allying to fight against the evil and befriending each other while accepting organically that they have other cultures and interests. So... Europe in the war. The book is as anti-racist as you can have

Tolkien didn't deserved that but, most of all, didn't needed to be "improved" like that

[onepunchedman]

You're not at all touching on my argument. Read my reply to maxk42.