tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674236626840123242024-03-15T10:39:25.634-07:00Marta's BlogThoughts of a young adult author ....Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.comBlogger328125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-54437933799491293222024-01-20T10:27:00.000-08:002024-01-20T10:27:49.139-08:00Evil Races? Let's Look At Two Fantasy Examples<p>This post does not have a point. It's just a series of my observations. </p><p>One of the key points of Rings on Prime was their attempt to humanize the orcs, which is interesting because Tolkien himself also struggled with the idea of having an intrinsically evil race, like orcs. This video, from about <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSDqAA5inig" target="_blank">14:10-14:45</a> or so, does a great job explaining why RoP failed. </p><p>I've heard things (but it's 10 PM at night and I have work tomorrow, so I'm not researching them now) about Tolkien having a hard time reconciling an "evil race" like orcs with his values of redemption. I've also read a lot of headlines about Tolkien's creation of an evil race being racist and problematic and so on and so forth. I remember also hearing about evil races being reevaluated in other forms of fantasy media, such as D&D--<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTCkMsYsRUg" target="_blank">hence this song</a>, for example. </p><p>Something I realized recently, though, is that there is another "evil race" in fantasy that I have never heard this kind of theorizing about: the dementors from <i>Harry Potter</i>. Dear reader, I wonder why this might be? Why are fantasy readers uncomfortable with the orcs being an "evil race", but not uncomfortable with the dementors? </p><p>I mean, I haven’t seen any D&D stuff rewriting the dementors to be sympathetic characters who have their own perspective, and NO, that is NOT A SUGGESTION. Please don’t do that! Having the unsympathetic villain makes the story more interesting, and when the characters spend the entire third book wondering about the morals of compromising with something <i>so</i> evil because it’s a way to punish other evil people… I mean, that’s very interesting and thought-provoking. (Especially when it turns out that they had no compunctions about punishing innocent people, because they are unrestrained evil.)</p><p>But I do have to wonder, why are intrinsically evil characters not even noticed in one series, but make lots of other people (including the writer) uncomfortable in a different series?</p><p>I suppose one possibility is the context of the story. Rowling’s books have a lot of discussion about unfair treatment to other creatures, so when she trots out one irredeemable creature, everyone kind of gives it a pass. </p><p>Perhaps also because the only things we ever see dementors do are things that humans <i>can’t </i>do, and therefore we have no investment in them being redeemed. Orcs, on the other hand, engage in cruelty and violence, things that humans do and <i>can </i>be redeemed from, so we have an investment in their redemption.</p><p>However, I think the biggest difference is that the dementors are clearly some kind of animal, but the orcs in Tolkien were once other creatures. (The movies say they were once elves who were tortured and corrupted, and Rings on Prime really leaned into that; I’ve heard somewhere that Tolkien changed their backstory into something else, but I don’t remember what it was, and that’s not the one that everyone’s thinking of anyway, so…) Orcs are on one level the Elves are on too, while dementors are more in the category of wolves, sharks, and other animals that haunt our nightmares… except that the dementors in the book clearly talk to humans, so theoretically they should be on the same level as humans. </p><p>To be honest, I don’t really care. There are other creatures in Tolkien’ legendarium that no one feels the need to redeem (Balrogs, barrow-wights, and Nazgûl all come to mind), so maybe I’m wasting my time wondering over this question. But I thought it was an interesting difference, and I haven’t posted in a while, so there it is. If anyone has thoughts, then the comments should be working!</p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-23720318007654050152023-11-22T14:15:00.000-08:002024-02-03T20:50:47.337-08:00Eight Things Rings on Prime Absolutely Did Not Do Better Than Peter Jackson<p> I'm not the biggest fan of <i>Screen Rant</i>, mostly because they have interesting headlines that I click on before realizing it's another article from them and that now my Facebook feed will be full of their far-less interesting articles. But I saw this article and I simply couldn't resist clicking on it, because <i>yikes: </i>"<a href="https://screenrant.com/rings-of-power-better-lord-of-the-rings-movies/?fbclid=IwAR0JpJVNn2ElodFeOAFbm9CAr9mIsIZqKX_V-bNgtqvEgzp5icOjEJcjyk8#rings-of-power-makes-sauron-a-more-interesting-character" target="_blank">8 Things The Rings Of Power Does Better Than Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings Movies</a>".</p><p>Full disclosure, I saw the Jackson trilogy before I read the books, so I'm rather biased in favor of Jackson. Nonetheless, let's take a look at their list. I'm going to deal with their subheadings, not all their details unless their details are important. </p><h2>8. Rings Of Power Makes Sauron A More Interesting Character:</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Sauron Was An Unseen Villain In Jackson's Lord Of The Rings</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Sauron was an "unseen villain" in the trilogy? We saw his eye all the time (and yes, I know that the "eye" wasn't described that way in the books), and we heard his voice, which was <i>freaky</i>! If anything, that "eye" means we saw him <i>more </i>in the movies than we did in the actual books! (In fact... do we <i>ever </i>"see" him in the books?) He wasn't supposed to be the "interesting" villain; that was more Saruman, Denethor, and Wormtongue, who were admittedly a little shortchanged in Jackson's trilogies. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But the point of the article isn't Jackson's imperfections; it's Payne and McKay's supposed areas of superiority over Jackson. The problem is that Payne and McKay's Sauron <i>isn't </i>interesting; he's just confusing. They don't establish his motivations until much too late, and although they suggest going back and rewatching the show now that you know Halbrand is Sauron (hahaha, <i>now </i>that you know, as if everyone didn't instantly know), it doesn't clarify any of his motivations. Confusing is not the same as interesting. </p><p style="text-align: left;">This is the part that <i>really </i>annoyed me, though:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>Tolkien's various notes and unfinished stories, collected and posthumously published as <i>The Silmarillion</i> and other books, provided even further details about Sauron, including his multiple plans, forms, and general personality. Prime Video's <i>The Rings of Power</i> really works in that it brings these aspects to the screen. Halbrand may be an invention of the series, but he better reflects who Sauron was.</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">It does <i>not </i>work<i>. </i>It absolutely does not work. The appendices say that Sauron "endeavours to seduce the Eldar. Gil-galad refuses to treat with him; but the smiths of Eregion are won over" in the year SA 1200, and <i>three hundred years later, </i>"The Elven-smiths instructed by Sauron reach the height of their skill. they begin forging the Rings of Power" (364, <i>Return of the King</i>, 1978 edition). They take roughly 100 years to finish, and only after Sauron forges the One Ring does Celebrimbor realize Sauron's real plans. That's about 400 years of planning, plotting, deceiving, and so on. In the show? He steals some things, he says a few diplomatic lines... and the only reason they're seen as clever or manipulative is because The Main Character is so utterly demanding and tactless. The last episode has him suggesting stuff to Celebrimbor that Celebrimbor <i>should </i>already know only to <a href="https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=43&q=alloy+episode+metaphor&cvid=99fcf810428e49e98c6c87638a46ec90&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDQwMzdqMGoxqAIAsAIA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=HCTS">have <i>another </i>metaphor</a>, but that takes up only part of the episode. And <i>that</i>, to Screen Rant, is "working"? Condensing 400 years of plotting and scheming into a few dumb lines that are primarily metaphor and some theft is somehow <i>better </i>than Peter Jackson's Great Eye? <i>Better? </i></p><p style="text-align: left;">In the last scene between Sauron and The Main Character, he lays out how <i>she </i>has been controlling events, and not <i>him</i>. You think <i>that's </i>closer to Sauron's character? </p><p style="text-align: left;">That's just <i>different</i>. That's not <i>better.</i></p><h2>7 Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Changed Elrond:</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Elrond Is Far Kinder & Less Critical In Rings Of Power</h3><p style="text-align: left;">I think this is the most reasonable one on the list, but it's once again <i>different</i>, not <i>better</i>. I quibble with the idea of describing Elrond as a "politician", when he should have been called a <a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Elrond">"herald" or a "captain"</a>... oh wait, are they trying to make it "accessible" to "modern audiences"? And to be fair, Robert Aramayo was an excellent choice to play Elrond (and I sincerely hope he quits Rings on Prime and goes to HBO's <i>Harry Potter </i>series and plays Lupin. He's just the right age, he's clearly a subtle actor, and he sure looks like Lupin!) Elrond's script tended to make the most sense, he was the least likely to describe what we could see happening on screen anyway. Like Sauron, his motivations weren't always clear, but they sure make more sense than Sauron's do. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But none of that makes him <i>better </i>than Jackson's Elrond. I know Elrond never opposed Arwen's marriage to Aragorn in the book, which is a noticeable change. On the other hand, the Elrond in Rings on Prime agreed to "treat" with Sauron in the show, which he <i>clearly</i> didn't do in the lore. None of the Elves who were corrupted by him knew that he was Sauron at first, either, similar to the show, but certain Elves still sensed and mistrusted him because of their perceptiveness--<a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Sauron#Forging_of_the_One_Ring" target="_blank">Elrond in particular</a>. So, which change is worse? The one where he loves his daughter so much he needs to be persuaded extra hard to allow her to marry a mortal? Or the one where he loses his perceptiveness and--possibly--some of his virtue and his rejection of power's temptations? </p><p style="text-align: left;">To be honest, the Elrond in the show seems to want power--not necessarily for himself, but for the people around him. He first goes to the Dwarves because he wants to help Celebrimbor build the most <i>powerful </i>forge ever in order to recreate the wonders of Feanor (because the <i>Silmarillion's </i>whole plotline totally isn't a warning sign for how terrible an idea that is, oh no), and not to go revisit his friend. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I'm with Jackson on this one, not McKay and Payne. </p><h2>6. Dwarves Aren't Just Comic Relief In Rings Of Power</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Gimli (& Other Dwarves) Were Far More Serious In Tolkien's Works</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Not really. In the books, they were comical for excessive courtesy and formality (especially Thorin in <i>The Hobbit</i>); in Jackson, Gimli was comical for his jokes and his daring; and in Rings on Prime, the dwarf prince was comical for <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxS5WZGBW38&list=PLsfw3n5teM4I_AI68_QXKAxhNmUCDrAx2&t=1191s" target="_blank">crudeness and informality</a>. True, Gimli was quite shortchanged in the Jackson movies, and we don't see his courtesy or his deep love of craftsmanship or beautiful ore, but we don't really get that from the dwarves in Rings on Prime either, so... different but not better. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Yes, I know the show has a whole conflict about whether to mine mithril or not, but we don't see the Dwarves ever working at their forges or discussing their pride in created things. It's just interpersonal conflict. That's not really <i>better, </i>and it's certainly not closer to Tolkien than Jackson was. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Now that I really think about it, we never hear about the Dwarves <i>making </i>anything in the show. Not only that, but the costumes were so simple and plain that we don't get to see the results of Dwarven skill and pride in their work, and that was a pretty big thing in the books. At least in Jackson's original trilogy, we get to see the beautiful mithril shirt and the designs on Gimli's helmet. We see a lot more beautiful craftsmanship in the <i>Hobbit </i>movies, even if some of it was rather silly. But what metal craftsmanship do we even see in the show? We hear about them building the forge, but that's not really the same. </p><h2>5. Orcs Look Fantastic In Rings Of Power</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Practical Effects Have Come A Long Way Since Lord Of The Rings</h3><div>This is the picture Screen Rant uses for the Rings on Primes' orcs:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Rings-of-Power-Orcs.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=1500&dpr=1.5" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="200" src="https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Rings-of-Power-Orcs.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=1500&dpr=1.5" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Here are some of Jackson's orcs:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KPHgFXx25RJP0C0DHVV1D_yeO84=/0x0:1920x796/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1920x796):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22292113/Mauled_Orc.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="800" height="166" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KPHgFXx25RJP0C0DHVV1D_yeO84=/0x0:1920x796/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:1920x796):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22292113/Mauled_Orc.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/m8U5Yo3HzYrUTs1NK-RoEtz8HCw=/0x0:2148x1221/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:2148x1221):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22289966/_19___Greedy_Orc.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="455" data-original-width="800" height="228" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/m8U5Yo3HzYrUTs1NK-RoEtz8HCw=/0x0:2148x1221/1720x0/filters:focal(0x0:2148x1221):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22289966/_19___Greedy_Orc.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d834e84ae07fc50fa622ac8c5073da19?rik=ezIwsWSQzJ03AA&riu=http%3a%2f%2farwen-undomiel.com%2fimages%2fcreatures%2fSharku.jpg&ehk=%2fbzgkK%2fDP%2bvScdTvefN7ez4go4xQhgrX52z6wjwCB5w%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="347" height="400" src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.d834e84ae07fc50fa622ac8c5073da19?rik=ezIwsWSQzJ03AA&riu=http%3a%2f%2farwen-undomiel.com%2fimages%2fcreatures%2fSharku.jpg&ehk=%2fbzgkK%2fDP%2bvScdTvefN7ez4go4xQhgrX52z6wjwCB5w%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0" width="265" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Different, but not better. </div><h2 style="clear: both;">4. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Ruined Isildur</h2><h3 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Rings Of Power's Version Of Isildur Is More Faithful To Tolkien Canon</h3><p style="text-align: left;">I'm not going to pretend that I like what Jackson did to Isildur, but that doesn't make Rings on Prime's Isildur any better. His character, at the moment, is nothing like the heroic king that he would become, but just a wandering, confused young guy whose motivations keep changing. (If he wants to go West and "keep the old ways" with his brother, why does he suddenly change his mind in the next episode and go to Middle-earth? By the way, that whole thing could have been fixed if Elendil had said something like, "You can't go west until you've proven yourself and regained some respect. Come to Middle-earth, then you can go west.") I don't agree that such a portrayal--which, so far, has been completely original to the showrunners--qualifies as "more lore-accurate" or "better". </p><p style="text-align: left;">I also don't agree that Isildur was "ruined" in the movies. I would have <i>loved </i>to see more of his heroism, but that "evil" smile he gives Elrond in Mt. Doom is very clearly because the Ring corrupted him, and it kind of parallels what Frodo does in Mt. Doom later. </p><p style="text-align: left;">It's important to remember that the whole Mount Doom scene between Elrond and Isildur was done to show the power of the Ring over someone's heart (foreshadowing Boromir and Frodo). What was the purpose of all the changes made to Isildur in Rings on Prime? </p><h2>3. Rings Of Power Gives Elf Characters More Variety</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Made Elves Too Perfect</h3><p style="text-align: left;">First off, isn't this the exact same article that was complaining Elrond was "too critical" in #7? But now, all their personalities blur together? </p><p style="text-align: left;">Secondly, <i>more </i>variety? Yes. <i>Good </i>variety? Not really. What's especially rich is this:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>Characters like Celebrimbor and Feanor were known to have significant faults, which often came down to pride and hubris. This is communicated far better in The Rings of Power, where these characters are seen to struggle with temptation in a far more relatable way and where one Elf is entirely defined from another.</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">The first problem with this analysis is that we never see Feanor do anything, much less struggle with pride (and did the show ever discuss Feanor's weaknesses?). The second problem is that we don't really see Celebrimbor "struggling with temptation", mainly because the "temptation" is so poorly executed--that whole (completely original) plotline about how the Elves must leave Middle-earth or die, but can be saved by mithril being turned into a ring really weakens the whole "temptation of power" and turns it into a justified struggle to remain in their home. </p><p style="text-align: left;">And what's more, the show completely cut out one character trait from many of them--<i>they weren't fooled by Sauron in disguise</i>. I don't think Rings on Prime gets to take credit for their characters when the show takes away an important character trait just to make their villain look stronger. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But sure, "more variety". </p><h2>2. Middle-Earth Is More Diverse In Rings Of Power</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Lord Of The Rings' Casting Greatly Lacked Diversity</h3><div>I'm not getting drawn into this one. </div><h2>1. Rings Of Power Covers More Middle-Earth Stories At Once</h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">Lord Of The Rings Was Limited By Its Movie Format</h3><p style="text-align: left;">I burst out laughing when I saw this. <br />There is <i>so much </i>wasted time in this season! Just some examples:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The whole "will Numenor help the Southlands" debate gets solved and then reopened</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>There's a plotline about Isildur being missing and presumed dead, when everyone knows he lives to cut the Ring off Sauron's hand</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Whether the Harfoots will trust totally-not-Gandalf or not keeps getting solved and then reopened, again and again</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Those three witches</li></ul><p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;">Remember how for #8, I pointed out how much of Sauron's story they cut out? They cut that out in favor of wasting time! Couldn't we have at least gotten <i>two </i>episodes of Sauron and Celebrimbor, instead of just part of one?</p><p style="text-align: left;">They may have <i>covered </i>more Middle-earth stories, but that doesn't make the stories <i>good</i>. They were silly, illogical, and massive wastes of time. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Also, covering more stories "at once" isn't <i>better. </i>If it's anything at all, it's a <i>problem</i> because those stories <i>didn't </i>happen "at once". </p><p style="text-align: left;"><i>The Lord of the Rings </i>tells the story about how to defeat the titular villain. All the stories in those books are indeed about defeating Sauron. That's not a limitation--that's called <i>focus</i>. Meanwhile, pretty much none of the Rings of Power's stories are about the aforementioned rings of power. How is that better? </p><p style="text-align: left;"><i>How is that better </i>applies to most of this article. Best case, it's just "different", but none of these are better. </p></div>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-91047758798923604192023-09-06T17:41:00.305-07:002023-09-06T17:41:00.136-07:00*Plot Twist Spoilers* An Implausible Fear Was Right<p> There's one major plot twist at the end of the series, and this post spoils that. I somewhat think everyone knows what it is at this point, but in case you don't this is your warning. </p><p>So. The first episode of Rings on Prime has The Main Character convinced that even though Morgoth was defeated, his lieutenant Sauron was still out there, and despite finding no trace of him after hundreds of years of searching, she is determined to find him. Then High King Gil-galad calls her back and declares the war is over and there is to be no more searching for Sauron. What he didn't tell The Main Character is that he knew Sauron was still out there because a tree was getting infected; he decided to stop The Main Character from searching for Sauron because "The same wind that seeks to blow out a fire may also cause its spread." (Or approximately those words.) <br /></p><p>I've heard a variety of critics of the show saying something along the lines of, "We know The Main Character will be right in the end, even if she has no proof now", but something I've realized in the last couple of weeks is that she <i>isn't </i>right--Gil-galad is. In the very actions of trying to destroy Sauron, The Main Character returned Sauron to power. </p><p>I mean, the show never highlighted that. A moment of reflection from The Main Character when she realizes she probably shouldn't have tried to "touch the darkness" because "touching the darkness" didn't show her the light, it just caused all the problems for everyone, might have been nice. But no. </p><p>Anyway...</p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Metaphors Are Weird</h3><p>There are two metaphors that are essential to the plot of the season. The first metaphor--not the first one the show says, but the first one I'm going to discuss, because it makes sense--is Gil-galad saying that wind can put fire out or make it spread. The Main Character is the wind, and Sauron is the fire; if she keeps trying to "put him out", she might make him return to power instead. Interestingly, <a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Sauron#Weapons_&_powers" target="_blank">Sauron is linked closely to fire</a>, so this isn't too unrealistic to say. The problem is that this metaphor is weird for one person. Fire is out of control; a person (usually) is under their own control. This metaphor would make a lot more sense if we were talking about a large group of people, or a cause. </p><p>Think about something like the <a href="https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/intolerable-acts" target="_blank">Intolerable Acts</a> from the American Revolution. After the Sons of Liberty destroyed a lot of tea in an act of protest, the British Parliament passed four severe laws to punish the entire city of Boston as an example to other colonists--blow out that fire, if you will. However, it made people angrier instead, and other colonies were spurred to action instead of frightened into obedience. The attempt to quash the Revolution instead made it spread. </p><p>So in theory, this analogy <i>could </i>make sense, but it doesn't make sense for Sauron, because Sauron is not a cause or an ideology. The orcs do not believe in the virtue of Sauron. They're not going to rally to his defense. They were described as <i><a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Orcs#Quotes_about_Orcs">slaves </a></i>of evil, for goodness' sake--if slaves' masters are defeated, will they rally to avenge him? This is not a situation where any fighting will continue once Sauron is gone; this is more of a head-of-the-snake situation. So, it doesn't make sense. </p><p>It ends up being <i>right</i>, but it doesn't make sense. Jeepers, this show...</p><p>The second metaphor... you know, I'm not going to quote it, because it's confusing, bewildering, and cumbersome. I'll just say it has a ship, a rock, light, darkness, and light reflecting on dark water and therefore dark water looking like light. What it <i>means </i>is that sometimes it is unclear what the right course of action is, and you learn what the right course of action is by choosing the wrong course of action. (But wait, if you don't know what the <i>right </i>course of action is, how do you know what the <i>wrong </i>course of action is?) </p><p>A lot of other people have said that this metaphor makes no sense in the context of the story, and I... sort of... almost... kind of disagree. It <i>can </i>make sense in the context of the story. It <i>doesn't </i>because the dialogue didn't set it up particularly well, but it could. </p><p>Here's the context in which the metaphor plays out: The Main Character is ordered to stop her search for Sauron because the war is over (the High King didn't tell her that he knew Sauron was still out there), and so she's ordered to return to Valinor. When The Main Character remembers this metaphor, she decides to disobey Gil-galad and follow her instincts, doing what she believed was right, and continuing to fight. </p><p>So, in this <i>particular </i>situation, there are two possible light-dark-ship-stone interpretations, where the "light" choice isn't clear. The first possibility is the debate on when it's right to follow your proper leader and when it's right to follow your own instincts and do what is right. There <i>is </i>a time to trust your leaders, even when they don't tell you everything, but there is <i>also </i>a time to stand up to the people over you and do what you know is right--and it's not always obvious which one is right in any given situation. The other possibility is knowing when it's right to fight for what's right and when it's right to accept peace. There's some meme on Facebook (I can't find it now) that says something like the strongest person knows when to use a pen and when to use a sword, but again, that's not always obvious, and you probably have to learn that from experience. Both of these moral debates could plausibly fit the metaphor and the situation The Main Character finds herself in. </p><p>Now, that's <i>me </i>putting those interpretations on there. That is <i>not </i>the show properly explaining the dilemma. </p><p>Either way, The Main Character decides to be the "stone" and chooses "darkness" (defying the leader, choosing fighting over peace) and returns to Middle-earth... by jumping out of the boat and swimming across the ocean...</p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">So Gil-galad Was Right, Because...</h3><p>Because The Main Character decided to swim back to Middle-earth, <i>because </i>she decides to be the "stone", she finds a raft in the middle of nowhere, and lo and behold, a fellow called Halbrand is on this raft. They end up going to Numenor. The Main Character really wants Tar-Miriel to send an army to the Southlands because she thinks Sauron is gathering orcs there, but Halbrand is the lost king of the Southlands and with an army from Numenor, he can reunite the Southlands and defeat Sauron. Halbrand insists that he is in fact <i>not </i>the king of the Southlands, but The Main Character doesn't listen. Halbrand also says that he did a lot of terrible things in the past, and so he doesn't <i>want </i>to be the king because he is unworthy, and he just wants to work as a nobody blacksmith. However, The Main Character keeps insisting and prodding (and manipulating) until he eventually agrees. They fight together to take down the orcs in the Southlands, there are a couple of heart-to-hearts between Halbrand and The Main Character in which he says she inspired him to have faith in himself again and hope that he could be redeemed. Then it's revealed that he's actually Sauron. He says again that The Main Character inspired him, and then he lays out his plans to dominate Middle-earth, with her by his side, and said he couldn't do it without her. <br /></p><p>So what that means is that by "choosing the darkness" The Main Character did indeed "spread the fire she sought to put out". <i>Becuase </i>she kept hunting for Sauron, she inspired him to return to power. </p><p>Because she hated him, she inspired him to be him. </p><p>Here's the problem with all of this: yes, Gil-galad ended up being right and The Main Character ended up being wrong, but not through any logical, standard, or predictable sequence of events; rather, through a whole lot of deeply implausible events that involve finding the only raft in the middle of an ocean and The Main Character refusing to believe the honest truth. The prediction was right, but not in any way Gil-galad could possibly have guessed (unless he was a prophet of some kind; I don't remember if he is in the books, and if he is in the show, the show didn't establish that). This makes Gil-galad lucky rather than right, and that does not inspire any respect for him. </p><p>It also doesn't exactly make for a strong plot. It makes for a sequence of events, I suppose, but not really a plot. </p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">All That Is Assuming...</h3><p>That Sauron was telling the truth, of course. I remember reading, but can't find now, an article when the two showrunners say that you're supposed to go back and second-guess if Sauron was ever telling The Main Character the truth, and if anything he says at all can be trusted. If he wasn't telling her the truth, then the alternative is that he was somehow manipulating her into doing all this. Gil-galad being right depends on Sauron being "out there" but <i>not </i>a threat until he encountered The Main Character, which tracks with everything that he said. On the other hand, if the whole time he was manipulating The Main Character, that means he was a threat from the beginning, so The Main Character was right and Gil-galad was wrong. </p><p>The problem, of course, is that we don't know which it was. </p><p>Like I said, I couldn't find that one article of them saying not to trust Sauron, but I did find <a href="https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a41610893/rings-of-power-showrunners-finale-interview/" target="_blank">this </a>quote from them: </p><p></p><blockquote>She also has to bear some responsibility; “I empowered the Dark Lord. I saved his life on a raft. I was party to him coming from obscurity to head an army.”</blockquote><p></p><p>Hm. Okay. Lots to unpack here. </p><p>Obviously, this doesn't say whether he was telling the truth or not. What it <i>does </i>say is that Galadriel was responsible for Sauron's rise to power, and it implies that she was <i>necessary </i>for Sauron's rise to power. All the stuff that she did--getting him in good graces with the Numenoreans, using them to defeat the orcs and subdue Adar, and finally getting into good graces with Celebrimbor to start forging the rings with mithril--he needed <i>her </i>to do all that. I mean, that does indicate Gil-galad was correct and she was incorrect, so I guess that's something. </p><p>In theory, this isn't a bad method of storytelling--a lower-down person befriending and using a well-placed person in order to rise through the ranks is a time-honored story, both in fiction and nonfiction. The reason this is baffling is that Sauron <i>isn't </i>a low-ranking person, <i>he's Sauron! </i>He's a shapeshifter in the First and Second Ages, and he does in fact corrupt the Elves of Eregion <i>without needing Galadriel</i>--as a point of fact, Galadriel is one of those people <a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Sauron#Second_Age">specifically mentioned to <i>not </i>trust him</a>, while <a href="https://fictionhorizon.com/who-was-annatar-and-why-did-the-elves-believe-him/" target="_blank">Celebrimbor trusted him quickly</a>. See, in the books, he took on the form of Annatar and claimed to be sent by the Valar to assist the Elves left in Middle-earth, which he could plausibly do because he did in fact have special powers and he did have skill in craftsmanship to share with the Elves. This is when they make the rings. No assistance from anyone else necessary. </p><p>Now, I checked the appendices and didn't find this spelled out (it's mentioned briefly as part of the timeline of the Second Age in Appendix B), so maybe they didn't have the rights to this story. </p><p>But let's just say for the sake of argument that Sauron did need The Main Character to get into the good graces of Eregion--that means he had to somehow predict to meet her <i>in the middle of the ocean </i>on a raft, depend on her <i>not </i>believing that he's not the king of the Southlands, depend on her convincing Miriel to send an army when he won't help convince Miriel, and then somehow depend on her taking him to Eregion after that, in order to participate in a project that he had no way of knowing was happening, given that The Main Character had no idea it was happening and (if the timeline is to be believed) didn't even begin until after he met The Main Character. This isn't master plotting, this is getting unbelievably lucky. </p><p>In fact, it's the same level of luck that Gil-galad had in order to correctly predict that Galadriel's attempt to destroy Sauron would return Sauron to power (when Sauron shouldn't have needed her to return to power in the first place!). </p><p>Now, I will say, with a certain sprinkling of magic--magic that is hinted at in the lore, I might add--this <i>could </i>make sense. If Sauron has <a href="https://martastahlfeld.blogspot.com/2023/08/what-did-they-do-to-tar-palantir.html" target="_blank">Tar-Palantir-esque</a> powers, then theoretically he could pull this off. But I don't think he does. As far as I know, Sauron's powers involve manipulating fire, making magic rings, and shapeshifting. He is described as a liar and a deceiver, but that doesn't mean he can change your mind magically, and--most of all--if the showrunners decided to change Sauron's powers, they need to somehow explain Sauron's powers, because as it stands, we have no idea what Sauron can and cannot do. </p><p>Alternatively, <i>maybe </i>Sauron's actual plan was to just get into The Main Character's good graces and then just go from there, without having Eregion as an end destination or having anywhere as an end destination; work spontaneously rather than create a long-term plan. That's never explained in the show, and I don't know why he would have picked The Main Character instead of any of the other Elves, so... explanation, please? </p><p>Or maybe his actual goal was Numenor the entire time? Maybe, as he was floating on some random raft in the middle of the sea, his <i>real </i>goal was to get picked up by the sea-faring, sea-loving Numenoreans, and running into The Main Character was just a coincidence and everything that happened afterwards was his adapting? I mean, <i>that </i>could be vaguely interesting, if the show would <i>explain </i>it. </p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">In Conclusion</h3><p>I originally was going to have another section about how the show confused feeling guilty about doing evil with not believing in yourself, or thought that believing in yourself was the way to move on from doing evil, but I don't remember the dialogue well enough to pinpoint exactly what the problem was, so I'm just going to leave it be. I will say that Sauron's motivations are never properly explained--that is to say, his motivation at the end, at least, was clearly defined as wanting to bring order to Middle-earth, but his smaller motivations, such as how any of his actions helped him reach this actual goal. </p><p>A major, major issue with this show was characters being right about things they shouldn't have been right on. There were little moments, like The Main Character just getting lucky about a hidden door in the first episode or Elrond lucking out and guessing that a children's rhyme has the rhythm to open the most secret door in Moria, and then there were long plotlines like the whole one about Sauron returning to power. None of this makes Gil-galad seem wise or Sauron seem clever, because it doesn't rely on wisdom or cleverness. It relies on implausible, unpredictable nonsense. That's not a compelling conflict. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-62381699461159468152023-08-30T17:34:00.002-07:002023-08-30T17:34:45.773-07:00Lore Isn't Useful If You Don't Explain It<p>This one might be the post that I'm most wrong about, and if I am, feel free to correct me in the comments. </p><p>There are a few cases where I will concede Rings on Prime was fairly accurate to the lore, but in those cases, they presented it the same way Peter Jackson's trilogy has Eowyn present Numenorean lore. The major difference between these two productions is that Peter Jackson relegated Numenorean lore to the extended editions, where the initiated would be happy to see it but it wasn't essential to the plot or front and center in the story. Rings on Prime really struggled with that. </p><p>There are two scenes in the Jackson trilogy that I'm thinking of--the first is that "stew" scene, when Eowyn tries to guess how old Aragorn is, and when he tells her, she suddenly says, "You are one of the Dunedain, a descendant of Numenor..." and so on. The second time (it's in <i>Return of the King</i>), right before Pippin snatches the palantir, Eowyn tells Aragorn about her nightmare of a great wave, which I'm <i>pretty </i>sure is a reference to the destruction of Numenor. (Or... was that the dream that Boromir and Faramir both had, and they gave it to Eowyn for some reason? Either way, a great wave sounds very like the destruction of Numenor.)</p><p>Incidentally, that first scene with Eowyn was one of the first scenes I saw of <i>Lord of the Rings</i>, when I was eight or nine years old, and I didn't have a clue what it meant. I think a lot of people probably don't know what it means, but that's fine, because it's not important for the story. It was clearly there out of respect for the story and respect for the people who already knew the story. </p><p>I guess there's a third time, when Arwen whispers to Aragorn, "May the grace of the Valar protect you." Who are the Valar? But that doesn't really affect any of the story. It's just a nice scene reminding us that Arwen exists.</p><p>The problem with Rings on Prime is that most of their lore is presented in the same way that those three tidbits of lore are presented in the trilogy: without proper explanation. For example, and this is the biggest example, does the show ever explain <i>what a Silmaril is</i>? Or, for that matter, who Feanor is? Why the dwarves and the elves don't get along, but some of them get along, but it's odd that they get along? What an <i>Istar </i>is? </p><p>There's a scene where Miriel says something like, "The Faithful believe that this tree signifies that the eyes of the Valar are still upon us--and their judgment." Cool. Who are the Faithful? Who are the Valar? And <i>unlike </i>the scene when Arwen whispers that, this actually <i>is </i>plot-relevant: this is presumably why Miriel suddenly changes her mind when the petals start falling from the White Tree and decides she will go against the beliefs of most of her people, when she was too afraid to do so just earlier. So... the judgment of the Valar is clearly more important than the beliefs of the people, so they're clearly very important... who are they? </p><p>And yes, I'm going entirely off of a memory that is months old, but I'm not double-checking it because I'm not giving Amazon more views. I might be wrong about this one. But until I can buy these on DVD from a used bookstore, I'm not rewatching them. And I probably won't even rewatch them then. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-69910785720701744332023-08-23T10:59:00.001-07:002023-08-23T10:59:00.143-07:00What Did They Do to Tar-Palantir?<p>I realized I'm probably in a very small minority here, but one of the things that irritated me the most about Rings on Prime is the changes they made to Tar-Palantir.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The King in the Books and the Show</h3><p>In the <i>Silmarillion</i>, Tar-Palantir is the older son of a king who despises the Elves and the Faithful; that king forced a Faithful woman to marry him, so when their sons were born, she tried to raise them to love the Valar and the old ways. In the case of her oldest son, she succeeded; in the case of her younger son, she did not succeed, and he behaved more like his father. </p><p>The king noticed this. He preferred his younger son over his older son, <i>and </i>wanted to make his younger son the next king instead. However, he couldn't do that because he couldn't change the Numenorean laws. The older son became king Tar-Palantir, but his younger brother kept causing him problems until he died early (the <i>Silmarillion </i>never mentions murder, but it <i>does </i>mention that he had an uncommonly early death). But the brother wasn't the only one causing problems, making Tar-Palantir's life very miserable. </p><p><i>However</i>, he was never deposed. He reigned as king until he died. Why? "[E]ven those that hated him feared his words as those of a true-seer" (<i>Silmarillion </i>277). People were <i>scared </i>of him. They were not going to get rid of him or force him out because they were too frightened. What interests me about this is that Numenor had become very arrogant and confident in their own power, so it's fascinating that even in their arrogance they could be afraid of someone they hated. </p><p>And in the show, all of that was just <i>gone</i>. </p><p>Tar-Palantir was a feeble, insane old man who died of <i>something</i>, spoke in rambles, couldn't accurately convey his prophecies, went crazy after looking through an actual Palantir, and <i>got forced off the throne!</i> Because I guess the Numenoreans actually weren't scared of him? Oh, and by the way, do we really think that Tar-Palantir would go insane after looking through a palantir? (I'm fairly sure that the palantiri themselves don't actually hurt you. All they do is talk to each other. What caused Saruman and Denethor to lose it after looking through their palantiri is the fact that Sauron had one of the other palantiri and was talking to them. But we <i>know </i>for a very solid <i>fact </i>that Sauron doesn't have one in the show, so...) </p><p>There's nothing much more to say about him, except that one of his prophecies was that when the White Tree died, the line of Numenorean kings would also die, and this prophecy eventually prompted Isildur to steal a fruit from the white tree and plant it, making an offshoot, and that offshoot eventually became the White Tree in Minas Tirith. In the show, Tar-Palantir is dead, and he hasn't made that prophecy, so... no White Tree in Minas Tirith? </p><p>By the way, in contrast with Tar-Palantir, his brother is described as "strong and ungentle" (277); <i>his </i>son was Pharazon, also a character in the show. In the book, Pharazon </p><p></p><blockquote>had become a man yet more restless and eager for wealth and power than his father. He had fared often abroad, as a leader in the wars that the Numenoreans made then in the coastlands of Middle-earth, seeking to extend their dominion over Men; and thus he had won great renown as a captain both by land and by sea. Therefore, when he came back to Numenor, hearing of his father's death, the hearts of the people were turned to him; for he brought with him great wealth, and was for the time free in his giving (277). </blockquote><p></p><p>In the show? He buys a bunch of drinks and talks with people. Oh, and the only time he's near a fight, he stays out of it. In fact, when there's a war, he doesn't go with the ships; Miriel does instead. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">How Not to Write Strong Characters</h3><p>One of the many issues I had with Rings on Prime is that, in order to make certain characters seem clever and strong, the writers made everyone around them seem like idiots. I've heard a lot of people talking about this issue with The Main Character, but I noticed it also with Tar-Miriel. I think that's why they have Elendil speaking very nervously to her, when as the son of the Lord of Andunie he probably should have known her well and addressed her almost like an equal; why they took away all of Tar-Palantir's story; and probably why they made Pharazon less of a warrior than he was in the books. They wanted to expand on Miriel's character, which is perfectly reasonable, but apparently the only way they could do that was to limit the other characters. Miriel has Pharazon's role, she has Tar-Palantir's place as ruler, and she looks powerful only by talking down to Elendil. </p><p>It seems as though the writers weren't talented enough to expand on her character without diminishing other characters. They didn't have the skill to make her interesting, so they took <i>other </i>characters' interesting skills and put them on her. </p><p>Well, either that, or they didn't have the rights to that part of the story. I guess that's always a possibility. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-87845254647070006092023-08-16T08:47:00.005-07:002023-08-17T15:59:44.433-07:00So Close, Amazon...<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I was scrolling back through my old text messages, trying to clear some space on my phone, and I stumbled across a screenshot I'd sent to my brother, and burst out laughing again:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUBU7ubUlXYgvV8mGBcWE1LEw5J1zJ_kpr7uaHf_wiwtEs-ZtkEXk1Bs-z9Ff_hAyPIAk4iRXMFXupFf--G_-g1_PkEFKsFdne3tmXsmvsdAFIrDD9wQ_IPw1yIqGwo0SSeeLfwy7wLKQSNu1zRBT3er9uAN9Slcxu_pEzp0Fo1Yl_HzFVfVoG0C539w/s1093/IMG_7772.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1093" data-original-width="750" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUBU7ubUlXYgvV8mGBcWE1LEw5J1zJ_kpr7uaHf_wiwtEs-ZtkEXk1Bs-z9Ff_hAyPIAk4iRXMFXupFf--G_-g1_PkEFKsFdne3tmXsmvsdAFIrDD9wQ_IPw1yIqGwo0SSeeLfwy7wLKQSNu1zRBT3er9uAN9Slcxu_pEzp0Fo1Yl_HzFVfVoG0C539w/s320/IMG_7772.PNG" width="220" /></a></div><br />According to my phone, I took that screenshot on August 16 of 2022, and given that the first trailer came out <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7v1hIkYH24" target="_blank">February 12, 2022</a>, and the <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/amazon-the-rings-of-power-series-first-look?utm_brand=vf&utm_source=twitter&mbid=social_twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned" target="_blank">Vanity Fair article</a> with that particular image came out February 10, 2022, it amuses me that it took them this long to come up with <i>this </i>response. Or did they respond before and I missed it? Certainly possible. <p></p><p>But what's so funny about this post? Well, two things. </p><p>First, it's these words: "Here's your proof <b>from the book itself</b>."</p><p>That quote isn't from a book. </p><p>That quote is from a <i>letter</i>, which, for the information of the Rings on Prime media team and all others who don't know, is a different form of literature from a book. This particular quote is from <a href="https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf" target="_blank">Letter 348</a>, which is dedicated to describing the meaning of Galadriel's name (it's on page 473 of that link). </p><p>Incidentally, here's a screenshot that shows why it's important to actually click on articles, and not just read Google's summaries:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNhfy5Hqmr7TlPH-uH8uqW4CBK9-HZDgUqfYVROdZs73p_B5le6LoGQplvjwXSldmayzSV8y6IyLoQbyli-Uaw4vz05a8HwuHfNpgUNr7D14aUC0q3XeGvDBBADmPOOAsNpXVFMfVPUCh4RBpj59BcU1Dc1veOC4SSxAEINmFFAcPbr5-tpP3j5tjMBw/s827/Screenshot%202023-08-14%20091513.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="827" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNhfy5Hqmr7TlPH-uH8uqW4CBK9-HZDgUqfYVROdZs73p_B5le6LoGQplvjwXSldmayzSV8y6IyLoQbyli-Uaw4vz05a8HwuHfNpgUNr7D14aUC0q3XeGvDBBADmPOOAsNpXVFMfVPUCh4RBpj59BcU1Dc1veOC4SSxAEINmFFAcPbr5-tpP3j5tjMBw/s320/Screenshot%202023-08-14%20091513.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>Okay, you might be thinking that it's silly for me to care this much about a quick little typo, but come on. This is after months of people criticizing this image online - even after months of the <i>critics </i>of this image sharing this precise quote online! - and it isn't even that difficult to find the letter. Someone had to photoshop that quote above the image, and cite it as "J.R.R. Tolkien", and didn't cite the letter, leaving some poor social media intern to look like a fool? It's just low-quality work, like the rest of the show. </p><p>Didn't Amazon originally start as exclusively a book-selling organization? </p><p>As for the second reason it's so amusing... well, look at it again:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTttofQLlopPKTnUY3vBOtJd-Z94PXM-u_P9_M1IH9gLcNtVyu-MFWUmGUl3-RQjOT7fDPKqRlK98kCqQsc1xv5liFcmVrJQFEJkuzPkSbMJNWn_DIMh6GREvpS2Lw4dMOFd9M1SNKCYFGTwlaL-ecsJapcr38NSXd92vYgYSipgTNRh-QcGpYJNoweA/s517/Screenshot%202023-08-14%20092201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="451" data-original-width="517" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTttofQLlopPKTnUY3vBOtJd-Z94PXM-u_P9_M1IH9gLcNtVyu-MFWUmGUl3-RQjOT7fDPKqRlK98kCqQsc1xv5liFcmVrJQFEJkuzPkSbMJNWn_DIMh6GREvpS2Lw4dMOFd9M1SNKCYFGTwlaL-ecsJapcr38NSXd92vYgYSipgTNRh-QcGpYJNoweA/s320/Screenshot%202023-08-14%20092201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p>Crown? I don't see a crown. </p><p><a href="https://martastahlfeld.blogspot.com/2022/06/more-about-amazons-questionable-foray.html">I've mentioned this before</a>, so I won't go into detail about it, but I still want to highlight, first of all, the disparity between what the words say and what the image shows (which happened in the actual show, too!), and second, the fact that the post I linked to was published on June 28, 2022 - so I referenced this letter even before whoever at Amazon's social media account created this post.</p><p>And now that I'm looking at this quote again, I've thought about something else that I may as well bring up to make this a serious post. Well, semi-serious. Tolkien talks about Galadriel doing "athletic feats" - basically sports. That does <i>not </i>translate immediately to going to war. You yourself probably know someone who's done sports but hasn't gone to war or made their entire personality about war. Women had been <a href="https://olympics.com/ioc/faq/history-and-origin-of-the-games/when-did-women-first-compete-in-the-olympic-games" target="_blank">competing in the Olympics since 1900</a>, but that didn't lead to the lot of them suddenly going into combat roles in WWI or WWII. </p><p>The rebuttal to my point, of course, is that Tolkien describes her as "Amazonian", which does <i>not </i>mean "appropriate for a show made by Amazon", but rather is a reference to an all-women society of warriors from Greek mythology. I suppose it depends on what Tolkien means by "her youth", and whether that time in her life was over before or after Morgoth stole the Silmarils. I sure don't know the answer to that. Nonetheless, I retain my original opinion that the showrunners focused entirely too much on what they could get away with rather than what made the most sense from context clues. At least, that's what I think about their press. The show itself was... well, not that.</p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-90243061815885586322023-08-15T00:30:00.001-07:002023-08-15T00:30:00.141-07:00I Have Finally Seen the Rings on Prime. <p> So as an update to <a href="https://martastahlfeld.blogspot.com/2022/07/and-even-more-about-amazons.html" target="_blank">this post</a>, here's what I've realized about Rings on Prime:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>They really did promote Tar-Miriel, unlike I had assumed, but questioned a fundamental part of the lore in doing so</li><li>Yes, Elendil is still Numenorean, so that was the journalist getting that wrong, not the show</li><li>Their talk of wanting to be independent from the Peter Jackson movies is far falser than I had predicted</li><li>Much of their conflict (which is the driving force in a story) <i>relies </i>on them ignoring the lore</li><li>The actors are fabulous, but the writers and directors aren't</li><li>Tolkien's themes of morality weren't good enough for them--either they didn't understand how truly complex his themes were, or they thought it was too outdated for a "modern audience"</li></ul><div>Okay, let's go. </div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Miriel is the Regent for Her Father... who is still alive? </h3><p style="text-align: left;">Admittedly this one isn't really a <i>problem </i>with the show, so much as my quibbling with how they interpreted a rather fundamental bit of lore. Lore, I might add, which is central to <i>the conflict </i>in Numenor. </p><p style="text-align: left;">So Tar-Miriel is indeed allowed to rule alone in place of her father, Tar-Palantir, who is still very much alive. Just... sick, out of his mind, and about to die. But clinging to life.</p><p style="text-align: left;">That's not how I would have read the Silmarillion. </p><p style="text-align: left;">If you have read the appendices, you will have seen the story of Aragorn and Arwen (which is dear and sweet and wonderful); at the very end, as Aragorn is very old, he says something like, "It is within my power to decide to give up my life when I choose". (I'm on vacation in another state, I don't have the books with me, so I'm working from memory.) This ties to the theme of death vs. immortality, and which one is the better gift. The <i>Alkallabeth </i>mentions that Aragorn has this ability to willingly lay down his life because the Numenoreans all had that right. The Faithful kings choose this option; the rebellious kings don't. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The <i>Alkallabeth </i>says this: </p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">"But Atanamir [one of the earlier kings of Numenor] was ill pleased with the counsel of the Messengers [from the Valar, who encouraged him to view death as a gift and not a curse] and gave little heed to it, and the greater part of his people followed him; for they wished still to escape death in their own day... And Atanamir lived to a great age, <b>clinging to his life beyond the end of all joy; </b>and he was the first of the Numenoreans to do this, <b>refusing to depart until he was witless and unmanned, and denying to his son the kingship at the height of his days</b>.</p></blockquote><p>Two things to highlight from this passage. First, notice how his clinging to life is put directly in opposition to loyalty to the Elves and the Valar; and secondly, Tar-Palantir was "witless and unmanned" in the show, so, as a Faithful king, he should have willingly laid down his life. </p><p>At least, that's how I read the <i>Silmarillion</i>. What Tolkien says of Tar-Palantir's death is simply, </p><blockquote><p>And it came to pass that Tar-Palantir grew weary of grief and died. </p></blockquote><p>So... did he die painfully, clinging to life, or did he die the same way all the kings before Tar-Atanamir did? Given that he was loyal to the Valar and the Elves, I would infer that he died the same way Elros and Aragorn did. Maybe not, perhaps trying to protect his daughter from his griefs.</p><p><i>Also,</i> at the end of episode...7? I think?... Miriel suddenly says to The Main Character, "I am Miriel, daughter of Ar-Inziladun." Using the language of the Numenoreans (Ar-Inziladun) is a deliberate and direct defiance of the Elves and the Valar. Whether Miriel was of the Faithful, of the King's Men, or never chose a side is kind of unclear in the lore, so I don't dispute that it makes sense Miriel might use this name for her father. What I do question is a) why she would only say it to The Main Character (who she is <i>agreeing </i>with in that moment) and b) why The Main Character is okay with it. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">While on the subject, let's talk about Miriel and Elendil</h3><p style="text-align: left;">So aside from the fact that Elendil is supposed to be the only human that Sauron truly feared and although the actor was clearly talented the script and direction gave no reason for Sauron to be afraid of Elendil (even to the point that Sauron steals from him with impunity!), Elendil in the <i>Silmarillion </i>is the son of the Lord of Andunie, <a href="https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Lord_of_And%C3%BAni%C3%AB">the second-highest ranked person in Numenor after the king</a> (and presumably the king's family). They're the descendants of <a href="https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/House_of_Elros">Elros by Elros' great-great-granddaughter Silmarien</a>, who couldn't become the ruling queen because during her life, Numenor's laws of primogeniture forbade women from ruling. (That changed later when one king <a href="https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tar-Aldarion">only had a daughter</a>.) The Lords of Andunie had a guaranteed place on the king's council.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In the show, Tar-Miriel has never heard of Elendil until he brings The Main Character to Numenor. So... they just stripped away the nobility of Elendil's lineage? Why??? It certainly wasn't necessary for anything that happened in season 1 (the plot parts where Elendil needs to look after The Main Character could have happened just as easily if Miriel had already known Elendil), so what exactly was the point of that? </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">About Those Others</h3><div>So it took me months to realize I hadn't finished this post, and, yeah, I'm going to deal with other problems of this show in separate posts. There's just so much to write about I barely know where to start. </div><div><br /></div><div>So... there'll be more posts. Later.</div><p></p><p></p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-48087090963109981672023-08-14T08:35:00.003-07:002023-08-17T16:36:19.822-07:00Do the Harry Potter Movies Need a Remake? <p>Personally? I think yes. </p><p>I didn't love the movies when they came out, and the older I get, the less I like them. I was baffled by some of the casting, I despised how the movies changed Ron's character (you know how in the third movie, when the kids first see Sirius and Hermione jumps in front of Harry and says, "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us to?" In the book, Ron said that as he hauled himself to his feet on a broken leg, in severe pain, because he was willing to protect Harry even when he was hurting), but most of all, it felt like the movies just missed the tone. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Harry Potter Books Are Mystery Novels, Not (Just) Action Novels</h3><p>There are really two major elements of mystery novels that most of the <i>Harry Potter </i>books have. First, each of them has a mystery novel component that is critically important to the plot of the story. Here are the main mysteries in the books:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><i>Sorcerer's Stone</i>--what is the bad guy trying to steal?</li><li><i>Chamber of Secrets</i>--who is the Heir of Slytherin, and where is the Chamber of Secrets?</li><li><i>Prisoner of Azkaban</i>--how did Sirius escape? (Well, and some more, too...) </li><li><i>Goblet of Fire</i>--who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire, and why?</li><li><i>Order of the Phoenix</i>--what is that door, and what's hidden behind it?</li><li><i>Half-Blood Prince</i>--what is Malfoy's plan? </li><li><i>Deathly Hallows</i>--where are the Horcruxes? (To be honest, I think this one is the least mystery novel of them all, so you could probably point to all kinds of reasons why this one roughs up my argument. True. But the others are clearly strong mystery novels.)</li></ol><p style="text-align: left;">Solving those mysteries is essential to ending the conflict in each of the books--the characters spend time puzzling over these questions, and the answers to them are essential. I won't write the answers here because they'll be spoilers, but the answers play a huge role in the conflicts of each. I suppose a mystery novel <i>is </i>a mystery novel because the mystery <i>is </i>the conflict, and in the <i>Harry Potter </i>books the mystery is <i>part of </i>the conflict, but it is nonetheless an essential part of the conflict. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Contrast that with a pure mystery novel like the <i>Boxcar Children </i>books (my mom appears to have donated all my copies, because I can't find any, but those are the books I was predominately obsessed with before I accidentally wandered into a room where <i>The Two Towers </i>was playing on the TV and I was bound to the world of fantasy forever, so I'll go off my memory of reading those books). For the sake of choosing one, let's go with <i><a href="https://www.boxcarchildren.com/book/the-mystery-of-the-hidden-beach/">Mystery of the Hidden Beach</a>. </i>The main <i>conflict </i>of the story is <i>Who destroyed the coral reef? </i>And through the book, the characters come up with a list of suspects, including some photographer named Katherine Kelly (? memory), a... ship captain?... name Nick Simmons... Nick Simpson... something that has the same initials as North Star... and some dude who ended up stealing something from someone but was actually just a red herring. Then the plot of the book is the four kids trying to figure out who cut away at the coral, and they find <i>clues</i>--I'm sure there were more, but the ones I remember are the chisel found near the coral with the letters <i>NS </i>on it, and the photograph of the water over the destroyed coral taken by the photographer. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Now contrast <i>that </i>with something like the <i>Redwall </i>books. I'll talk about <i><a href="https://redwall.fandom.com/wiki/Marlfox">Marlfox</a>, </i>but if we're being honest, most of them are about the same. The main conflict of <i>Marlfox </i>is a) going on a quest to take back the tapestry and then destroy the Marlfox castle, and b) defending Redwall against the Marlfox armies. Now, there is a puzzle in the book--the riddle that explains how to get to the Marlfox castle. But that isn't really a <i>mystery</i> because there aren't really <i>clues </i>to be solved. The characters solve one part of the riddle, go forward, and usually just accidentally stumble across the next part. Here's an example of what I mean:</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Song glanced up from the scroll that contained Friar Butty's rhyme, which she had been studying carefully. "You could be right, Burb, the river might be a dangerous place for us. You say we weren't far off some rapids when your tribe were chasing us, is that correct?"</p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p>"Oh yiss yiss, missie, the ould rapids are fast an' fierce. 'Tis a good job we never had t'face them so 'tis, yiss yiss."</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>Song tapped the parchment thoughtfully. "Hmm, it doesn't say anything in this rhyme about going over rapids on the river this early. All it says is:</p><p></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">"Just follow as I run away. <br />Discover the speechless hidden mouth,<br />Alas, my friends, our ways part there,<br />Go down green tunnel, bounden south,<br />Through trees with blossoms in their hair."</div></blockquote><p></p><div style="text-align: left;">Dann poured them the last of the dandelion and burdock cordial. "So, what does that tell us, Song?" </div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">"Think on it a bit, Dann. While we were following that river, did we see any streams or creeks running south before this one?"</div><p>"No, I'm sure we didn't. There wasn't a break in the bank until I saw this sidestream when they were chasing us. What are you getting at, Song?"</p><p>"Well, 'tis just an idea, but I think this is the speechless hidden mouth we were looking for..." (<i>Marlfox, </i>2000,<i> </i>page192)</p></blockquote><p> Do you see what I mean about them not needing to <i>solve </i>anything? They just sort of stumbled on it. This is different from a book where the central plot revolves around finding clues, interpreting them, and so on. </p><p>Actually--here's another example from that absolute <i>garbage </i>Rings on Prime show (and yes, I have a long list of blog posts about that, don't worry). Spoilers for this, I don't care. The season opens up with <i>Where is Sauron?--</i>a question that needs to be answered. There's even kind of a clue, in that "mark of Sauron" symbol thing. The first two episodes, the main character occasionally wonders what it could be; in the third episode, she goes to some Hall of Law (Hall of Lore?), accidentally tosses the symbol onto some map right over Mordor, and realizes that the symbol was a map of Mordor. See how, instead of following clues, deciphering them, and piecing them together, she just stumbles across the answer? See how that is different from the mystery examples? </p><p>The <i>Harry Potter </i>novels have elements of both; they have a big bad guy that needs to be defeated in some kind of conflict, <i>and </i>they have a mystery that needs to be solved, with clues and red herrings and suspects and all. In some of the books, solving the mystery leads to the big bad guy's defeat, and in some of them the mystery is just to understand the bad guy's motives, but the mystery is still essential to the plot. </p><p>Which brings me to the next element of <i>most </i>mystery novels: the big reveal scene. This is scene where in a Scooby Doo episode, they unmask the monster; in every Poirot episode, Poirot gathers all people even loosely involved in the mystery and explains to them all what happened; in the aforementioned <i>Mystery of the Hidden Beach</i>, all the suspects converge and confess their roles in the action and Nick Simmons explains that the NS actually stands for North Star, a chisel-making company. You get the idea. There's a scene where one or two characters just explain everything--the whole mystery, all the clues, etc. The <i>Harry Potter </i>books have something similar, too: </p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><i>Sorcerer's Stone</i>--the scene in front of the Mirror of Erised after getting through the obstacle course</li><li><i>Chamber of Secrets</i>--the scene in the Chamber when Riddle explains everything to Harry</li><li><i>Prisoner of Azkaban</i>--the scene in the Shrieking Shack (which, for the record, goes from pages 338-377 in the book--that's about 40 pages in a book with 435 pages. That means it took up about 9% of the book. How long was that scene in the movie? Like, four minutes out of a <a href="https://www.bingeclock.com/film/title/harry-potter-and-the-prisoner-of-azkaban/#:~:text=How%20long%20is%20Harry%20Potter%20and%20the%20Prisoner,which%20marathons%20it%27s%20on%20already%21%20Runtime%3A%20142%20mins.">142-minute</a> movie?)</li><li><i>Goblet of Fire</i>--there are really two in this one: the graveyard scene and the scene with the one Death Eater after the graveyard scene</li><li><i>Order of the Phoenix</i>--the scene in Dumbledore's office right after the fight at the Ministry</li><li><i>Half-Blood Prince</i>--the scene between Malfoy and Dumbledore on the tower</li><li><i>Deathly Hallows</i>--this one doesn't really have one, which is one reason I think it's the least mystery-like novel of the series. (Unless you want to get really critical and say that Voldemort was trying to solve the mystery, and Harry gave him the big reveal scene at the end... and the plot depended on Harry keeping Voldemort from solving the mystery... thoughts, anyone?)</li></ol><div>The reason I'm bringing both these reasons up is that in the first six books at least, the mystery element is <i>important, </i>but only the first two movies really keep that element. All the later movies downplay it. That "big reveal" scene, which is climactic in any good mystery movie, is cut short to some quick dialogue, and usually with some distracting nonsense because the directors or whomever wanted to have a loud noisy scene instead of making a scene that relies on tense pauses, actors' presence, and quiet and sinister atmosphere. </div><div><br /></div><div>Which brings me to...</div><h3 style="text-align: left;">The <i>Prisoner of Azkaban </i>Movie (a few spoilers ahead)</h3><p style="text-align: left;">I cannot think of a better example of a movie that just <i>missed the mystery </i>than the <i>Prisoner of Azkaban</i>. </p><p style="text-align: left;">First off, what is the mystery? That's one of my favorite parts of the book--the first time you read the book, the mystery is <i>how </i>did Sirius escape Azkaban? But, interestingly, none of the clues lead you to answer that mystery. All the clues in the book--the newspaper, the fact that Sirius didn't kill Harry when Hagrid had him, the fact that the Firebolt wasn't jinxed, and Sirius not murdering Ron when he had no problem killing twelve innocent people--all help to answer a different mystery: <i>what </i>does Sirius want, or possibly <i>why </i>did he betray his friends? </p><p style="text-align: left;">Speaking of those clues--those clues were <i>completely </i>forgotten by the movie makers. The movie included some elements that were important to the story--the newspaper photograph of Ron's family, Crookshanks trying to chase a very ill Scabbers, and Trelawney's Grim omens--but what was the <i>purpose </i>of those things being there? All of those things are clues, but they never <i>work </i>like clues in the movie. The newspaper is mentioned at the very beginning, there's a quick scene of Crookshanks chasing Scabbers, and the Grim... well. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In the book (chapter 9), Harry is playing Quidditch, and he looks <i>down </i>into the stands, where all the people are sitting, and in one of the stands, he sees the Grim. But in the movie--I guess to make it more <i>dramatic! thrilling! exciting! CGI!</i>--he sees the shape of the Grim in the <i>clouds. </i>This might be creepier, but it massively undercut the <i>point </i>of the Grim. </p><p style="text-align: left;">(Minor spoiler here)</p><p style="text-align: left;">In the book, he thinks he's seeing the Grim because Trelawney says she saw the Grim; it's actually a black dog--a solid, tangible, corporeal black dog. It isn't an omen--and therefore, it <i>cannot </i>be in the clouds. The <i>point </i>of the motif was completely lost because it had to be <i>more dramatic!</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">Which brings me to my next point...</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Movies Got the Atmospheres All Wrong</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The movies are very loud, flashy, actiony spectacles, but the books are a bit different. Of course, action movies rely on being spectacles--the point is the <i>action</i>. Do you remember how popular <i>Captain America: Civil War </i>was? I remember people talking about that absolute masterpiece of a fight scene in the middle of the movie. As far as the story was concerned, the movie had no stakes at all, because really nothing changed, but that didn't matter because the fighting was amazing and we got to see cool action heroes doing cool action things. It <i>was </i>loud, spectacular, and dramatic, because that was what it was supposed to be. It's an action movie. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Mysteries are different. They tend to rely on tense, sinister, quiet threats. Generally speaking, you know someone extremely dangerous is very near you, but they're hiding behind a safe facade. They may pounce when you aren't looking, maybe to kill again, and maybe even kill you. In a good mystery, you won't see the threat until the very end, but you will feel its presence.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Think about <i>Hound of the Baskervilles</i>, one of the classic Sherlock Holmes stories. In that book, you hear about how the murder victim walked out alone at night, ran away from <i>something</i>, and then apparently died of heart attack or fright. There are whispers of a curse. But you don't <i>see </i>anything. You know something is there, but you don't know what it is. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The various <i>Harry Potter </i>books--again, except the 7th--operate the same way. You know something dangerous is inside the castle (the person after the Sorcerer's Stone, the mysterious heir of Slytherin's monster, whoever messed with the Goblet of Fire, etc.) or, if not in the castle itself, inside one of the character's heads. Again, it's a sinister, lurking threat that needs to be exposed by following the clues, not by beating the truth out of something. It's supposed to be quiet, tense, and suspenseful. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The first two movies did a perfectly fine job of that, but the later ones... not so much. Once again, <i>Prisoner of Azkaban </i>has the best example of this: that scene in the Shrieking Shack. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In the book, the Shrieking Shack scene takes up a good chunk of the book, involves <i>some </i>fighting but also a lot of questions, suspicions of a betrayal, and very little yelling--at least at first. Here's a crucial part of it that, I think, captures the voice of the scene:</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">The door of the room burst open in a shower of red sparks and Harry wheeled around as Professor Lupin came hurtling into the room, his face bloodless, his wand raised and ready. His eyes flickered over Ron, lying on the floor, over Hermione, cowering next to the door, to Harry, standing there with his wand covering Black, and then to Black himself, crumpled and bleeding at Harry's feet. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">"<i>Expelliarmus!</i>" Lupin shouted. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Harry's wand flew once more out of his hand; so did the two Hermione was holding. Lupin caught them all deftly, then moved into the room, staring at Black, who still had Crookshaks lying protectively across his chest. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Harry stood there, feeling suddenly empty. He hadn't done it. His nerve had failed him. Black was going to be handed back to the dementors. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Then Lupin spoke, in a very tense voice. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">"Where is he, Sirius?" </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Harry looked quickly at Lupin. He didn't understand what Lupin meant. Who was Lupin talking about? He turned to look at Black again. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Black's face was quite expressionless. For a few seconds, he didn't move at all. Then, very slowly, he raised his empty hand and pointed... (343-344, 1999). </p></blockquote><p> Notice how the tension of the scene changes? It does start with a shower of sparks and someone bursting into a room, but then that's quickly gotten under control and the scene settles down. Harry is left thinking he knows what will happen and feeling like he failed. But then, the scene sharply changes--and when it does, it does with a quiet, mysterious question that makes no sense to the reader, although the use of the word "tense" shakes the sudden feeling of letdown and makes the place feel more dangerous. The answer from the antagonist is extremely minimal; there is no more energy than is necessary to answer the question. Minimalist, quiet, subtle, tense. </p><p>In the movie, in contrast, Black was laughing like a maniac, then Lupin and Black have a weird cryptic back-and-forth, Lupin lowers his wand and both of them start chuckling. Then, multiple chapters of explanation are cut into something like fifteen lines, soon followed by a ridiculous chase scene with spells going flash-bang and even something running over a piano to get that iconic piano note. The movie scene dispensed with much of the subtle, nuanced tension in favor of a loud scene. Great. </p><p>Now that I've written all that out, it occurs to me that there is a better example, which is how the movie portrays the dementors. The first scene with the dementors was perfect--quiet, creepy, sneaky, dark, sinister. But the next scene was that aforementioned Quidditch match, and now the dementors are flying everywhere and there's a whole weird scene as Harry tries to dodge them. The movie went for an action tone and cool shots instead of the sinister fear of the dementors. </p><p>None of this is to say that there's <i>no </i>action in the books, but rather that the filmmakers inserted action when the books had suspense. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">In Conclusion</h3><p style="text-align: left;">This is all to say that I think there is a market to remake the movies - especially as a TV show. I wouldn't describe the movies as unrecognizable from the books, but I definitely feel that missing tension and stronger action tone, and I would like to see the small clues and the details that were dropped from the movies. If the show makers remember to play up all those elements, I think we could, at the very least, have an adaptation that can justify its existence and give book readers a genuinely different experience. </p><p></p><p></p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-10162987816264281182022-07-20T17:11:00.004-07:002022-08-15T13:44:11.626-07:00And Even More About Amazon's Questionable Foray Into Middle-earth! (Updated)<p> A few days ago, posters showing the Numenoreans from <i>Rings of Power </i>was released, and someone <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/now/welcome-n-menor-exclusive-look-010004678.html" target="_blank">released an article</a> talking about the storyline and the actors. At least it's not Vanity Fair this time! (I say someone because I could have sworn it was Entertainment Weekly, but now when I go to their site, I can't find it anywhere. It's on Yahoo! right now.)</p><p>I actually did have a different blog post planned which would follow up my last post about Rings of Power, but then this article was released, and it showed my point even better! </p><p>One of the things I grumbled about in the last post was that, for a time in Tolkien's legendarium when very little was described, the writers play fast and loose with what little Tolkien <i>actually </i>described. People have worked very hard to justify "warrior Galadriel", going back to notes and letters and everything except the books, but the stuff that is <u>plainly written in all the books and notes and letters</u> was missing from their descriptions. For example, where are Celeborn and Celebrian, Galadriel's husband and daughter? They spent so much time talking about what was <i>possible </i>for Galadriel, but the never mentioned anything about the stuff <i>we actually know </i>about her! </p><p>Well, with the new information about the Numenoreans, we finally get some info about what they did with what Tolkien definitely said happened. And... well. Let's play a game. </p><p>The following are excerpts from the article. As I go through it, I'm going to make lots of comments, of course, but I'm also going to keep track of the things the show makers--or, it must be stated clearly, <i>the article </i>(I don't have a lot of faith in journalists)--get dead wrong. As in, there are literally specific words in Tolkien's book that prove them wrong. Not debatable, not "just <i>why</i>", dead wrong. I will, however, <i>also </i>be keeping track of what they get completely correct. Again, not interpretive, not debatable, not trying to understand something Tolkien didn't write--but when they are wrong about something he did write. </p><p>So then... off we go! </p><p>The article opens up by talking about how one of the directors was admiring the set. </p><p></p><blockquote><p>"Being on set was just breathtaking," Yip explains. "We were there for weeks, but every day I'd notice a new detail I'd never seen before, like graffiti etched into weathered stone, or a small shrine. There was a whole wall made out of oyster shells. Every corner you'd turn, there was just so much storytelling.</p><p>It's that storytelling — and that level of obsessive detail — that anchors The Rings of Power, <a href="#">Amazon Prime Video</a>'s <a href="#">sprawling new</a> epic (debuting Sept. 2)... With a <a href="#">reported price tag</a> stretching well above $1 billion, The Rings of Power stands to be the most expensive TV series ever made. More importantly, the series faces the scrutiny of millions of fans, all of whom have spent the last few decades poring over Tolkien's writing (and rewatching the beloved Peter Jackson film trilogy.)</p></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Plenty of people have dug up Jackson’s quote about not inserting their own agendas into his trilogy, so I won’t repeat it here. All I can say is that the shots they have shown have looked cheap. And the costumes, oh the costumes… Galadriel’s golden dress looks like it came from Spirit Halloween. </p>Maybe we’ll be blown away by the actual sets when we finally get to see them. It is possible that the advertising is just terrible and the series really is wonderful. Remember <i>Frozen’s</i> advertising? It looked more like <i>Ice Age</i> than what we actually got. So, to be fair, maybe it’ll be good.
<p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>That
devoted fandom is why Payne and McKay pondered every tiny detail on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>The Rings of Power</em><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>— right down to each stone in
Númenor. "It was one place that we were just laser-focused on saying, 'We
need to get this right,'" Payne explains. "It's never been seen
before. People have some ideas of what elves look like or what dwarves look
like and what those kingdoms might look like. But Númenor was, in some ways, a
blank canvas."</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">They treated entirely too much like it’s a blank canvas. Not just Numenor, but other stuff, too. For what it's worth, there should be something vaguely "Celtic" about it--in <a href="https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf">one of Tolkien's letters</a> (one that they love quoting certain parts of), he talked about how it should have some Celtic designs in it, although in other letters he says he doesn't want too much, and... No, there's not a whole lot. </p><p style="text-align: left;">If only we could have seen these glorious sets in the trailer...</p>
<p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>Tolkien
describes Númenor as the greatest human civilization in Middle-earth's history,
a beacon of knowledge and culture that influenced the rest of the world.
However, hubris and ambition rot the kingdom from the inside, and the island is
ultimately destroyed, falling into the ocean like Middle-earth's version of
Atlantis. In some ways, the story of Númenor could be seen as a cautionary tale
for the show itself. If<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>The
Rings of Power</em><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>succeeds,
it could rise to unprecedented heights, leaving a legacy that could endure for
years to come. If it fails, it could instead go down like the doomed island
itself, destined to sink beneath the waves.</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Arise! Arise, Readers of Tolkien! Teasers shall be ratioed! Prime accounts shall be canceled! A sore day! A proud day ere the sun rises!</p><p style="text-align: left;">Seriously, though, I'm stunned at how united the Tolkien fandom is. Every ad for this show that I've seen on Facebook has overwhelmingly critical comments (of a most stern kind), and YouTube, oh YouTube... It's pretty amazing when <i>Amazon </i>has to unlist their videos for shame and rejection. </p><p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><em><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></em></p><blockquote>The Rings of Power isn't a direct adaptation of an existing Tolkien novel.</blockquote><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">It doesn’t qualify as an adaptation of anything Tolkien wrote, but I’ll explain what I mean later.</p><p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>Instead,
it's inspired by the author's extensive notes, published in the appendices to<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>The Lord of the Rings</em>. </blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">“Instead”? What is the “instead”? Is it that it’s “inspired by instead of adapted”? Or is it, “extensive notes instead of an existing novel”? Or both? The answer to this question changes how the series is supposed to be understood.</p><p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>After Amazon closed its multimillion-dollar deal with the Tolkien estate in 2018, the streaming giant began soliciting pitches from different creators. The winners were Payne and McKay, two largely unknown writers whose highest-profile job at that point was uncredited work on the Star Trek franchise... Despite their relative inexperience, Payne and McKay were lifelong Tolkien geeks, and their pitch centered on a story they themselves had always wanted to see on screen: <a href="#">the Second Age</a>.</blockquote><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">I truly am curious to know how they won out. One of the YouTubers I listen to says that studio executives like to hire inexperienced writers because they don't have the seniority to tell the studio "no" when they need to. </p>Also—and I know this isn’t McKay and Payne, but I have to mention this somewhere—have you heard some of the dialogue in the trailer? The exchange between Galadriel and Elrond? It’s not great.
<p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>"We
were not interested in doing a show about the younger version of the same world
you knew, where it's a little bit of a prequel," McKay explains. "We
wanted to go way, way, way back and find a story that could exist on its own
two feet. This was one that we felt hadn't been told on the level and the scale
and with the depth that we felt it deserved."</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">…? It absolutely is in the same world. That’s exactly what it is. It literally is in the same world and it literally comes before the Third Age. That’s how it works. </p><p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>The Second
Age occurs thousands of years before Bilbo or Frodo Baggins were even born, but
the era includes some of Middle-earth's most significant events, from the
forging of the rings to the rise of the evil Sauron. </blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">In other words, it's a prequel.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Okay, technically that’s not enough for something to be a prequel. If you have a six-book series, Book 4 isn’t really a “prequel” to Book 5. I guess McKay and Payne are saying they want their series to have a status bigger than “serving to make the Jackson films more fleshed out”, and I can respect that.</p><p style="text-align: left;">But does anyone else remember, from the <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/10-burning-questions-about-amazons-the-rings-of-power" target="_blank">Vanity Fair articles</a>, how they described Galadriel? For a refresher, here's what they said about Galadriel:</p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">...this young hot-headed Galadriel…how did she ever become that elder stateswoman?</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">So... they want you to have backstory for a character that clearly explains how that character got to be the character they were in the work that you've already seen? </p><p style="text-align: left;">What exactly do they think a prequel is? </p><div><blockquote>
<p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></p><blockquote>The era begins in a time of peace, but tension lurks throughout the land. The elves have founded the great kingdom of Lindon, but some fear that evil is creeping back into Middle-earth. Meanwhile, the dwarves are at the height of their power, living large in the underground realm of Khazad-dûm. <br /><br />The island of Númenor is ruled by the queen regent Míriel (Cynthia Addai-Robinson), and this seemingly idyllic paradise is facing tensions of its own. Númenórean royals are human but have elvish blood, and for years, they've been friends with their immortal counterparts. Over time, however, a schism appears, as some residents continue to pledge their loyalty to the elves and the godlike Valar, while others ponder a more modern, independent future (and become increasingly afraid of their own mortality). The showrunners note that Tolkien never wanted his stories to directly echo real-world politics, and they feel the same way about The Rings of Power. Still, Payne points out, there's something deeply relatable — and timely — about the anxieties and political divisiveness wracking this fictional island.</blockquote><p style="line-height: 21pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0in 12pt;"><span style="color: #111111; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Okay. Lots to unpack with the Numenoreans. Let the game begin! </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">1. Tar-Miriel was the queen, not the queen regent. Her father was Tar-Palantir, the last faithful king of Numenor. <b>Right: 0. Wrong: 1</b>.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">2. The description of the schism is correct. I’ll give them one point for that. The reason they don’t get two points is because they left out a rather important detail: the Elvish blood the Numenoreans carry comes entirely from Elros. The brother of Elrond. And, given that Elrond is an important character in the show, that’s some important information to share. <b>Right: 1. Wrong: 1</b> </p><p></p></blockquote><blockquote>
<blockquote>"Tonally, we wanted [Rings of Power] to reflect [Tolkien's] main story points of friendship and good and evil," Yip says. "One of the ideas is: How far into the darkness are you willing to go to do the right thing?"</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">Um. I’m not sure what this guy means. Does he mean, how far while fighting against the darkness? Like Frodo and Sam went into Mordor? Or does he mean how much you embrace the darkness? Because if that’s what he means—Boromir. Boromir wanted to use an evil ring to do good, and we all know how that turned out. </p><blockquote>At Númenor's center is the royal Míriel, who is wrestling with how to guide the home she loves into the future. "When it comes to playing a character that holds such a lofty position, I can't say that I necessarily relate to what it is to be a queen," Addai-Robinson says with a laugh. "But I think there is something relatable about how isolating that can feel, and how you're grappling with things that no one else can really understand."</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">Queen? Or queen regent? Those are two different things. The earlier paragraph definitely said queen regent. Didn’t it? Did my eyes just read wrong?</p><blockquote>Míriel is aided by her close counsel Pharazôn, played by Trystan Gravelle. (No spoilers, but Tolkien readers know him as one of the major players in Númenor's eventual downfall.) His son Kemen is played by Leon Wadham. "When you see the set of Númenor, it's like you're walking through [Pharazôn's] mind," Gravelle teases. "When you see these epic statues and this wonderful masonry, you're walking through the mind of a person that's burdened by his own mortality and is very concerned about what legacy he's going to leave behind."</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">3. Oh yes, spoilers! Pharazon isn’t Miriel’s counselor (nor is he her <i>counsel</i>—that’s not a person), he is her husband and her cousin. Here’s how the Alkallabeth describes them:</p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>“And it came to pass that Tar-Palantir grew weary of grief and died. He had no son, but a daughter only, whom he named Míriel in the Elven-tongue; and to her now by right and the laws of the Númenóreans came the sceptre. But Pharazôn took her to wife against her will, doing evil in this and evil also in that the laws of Númenor did not permit the marriage, even in the royal house, of those more nearly akin than cousins in the second degree. And when they were wedded, he seized the sceptre into his own hand, taking the title of Ar-Pharazôn (Tar-Calion in the Elven-tongue); and the name of his queen he changed to Ar-Zimraphel.”</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">I guess the only reason they changed their relationship is to remove this, but you could still have made Tar-Miriel the Queen! <b>Right: 1. Wrong: 2. </b>Incidentally, there's no mention of them having a son, or of Ar-Pharazon ever having a son. But there's no mention of him <i>not </i>having a son either, so...</p><p style="text-align: left;">By the way, remember the aforementioned split between the Numenoreans? The “Tar” in Tar-Miriel’s name is important, because that’s how you know what side she’s on. Same with Ar-Pharazon. “Tar” is “ruler” in an Elvish language, and “Ar” is the same word in the Numenorean language. Those kings and queens who were loyal to the Elves and the Valar used Elvish names, and those who weren’t did not, but Tolkien didn’t expect you to memorize Elvish and Numenorean names, so he added Tar and Ar. It was a simple way to immediately tell which side kings were on. Why did they take that out?</p>But maybe that’s just the journalist.
<blockquote>Fortunately, Númenor also has hopeful allies, like the sea-faring Elendil (Lloyd Owen) and his son Isildur (Maxim Baldry). The young Isildur is Aragorn's direct ancestor, and fans know he will grow up to face off against Sauron, slicing the ring off the enemy's hand. But for now, he's just a young sailor trying to find his place in Middle-earth. "You know where he goes, but how does he get there?" Baldry offers. "That's what is exciting about this show: You see Isildur as a young man at a crossroads."</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">4. Elendil isn’t an “ally” of Numenor, he <i>is </i>Numenorean. He is descended from Elros. This means he is of the royal line of Numenor (but more removed from the throne than Tar-Miriel or Ar-Pharazon). Being a descendent of kings is what gives Aragorn the right to be king in the trilogy. Being descended from Elros is what gives Isildur and Elendil the right to be kings of Numenoreans in Middle-earth. I know that goes against modern sensibilities, but Tolkien’s world doesn’t always follow modern sensibilities. I’ve actually already written about this (before I knew anything about Rings of Power, ironically enough), <a href="https://martastahlfeld.blogspot.com/2020/12/genre-crossovers.html" target="_blank">in this post</a>. <b>Right: 1. Wrong: 3. </b>To be fair, of all of them, this one sounds <i>most </i>like it could be the journalist's fault, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know one way or the other.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Also, tell me again how this isn’t supposed to be a prequel? Sounds like the actor for Isildur doesn’t agree. "You know where he goes, but how does he get there?" is some very prequel-sounding talk.</p><blockquote>Addai-Robinson, Gravelle, Owen, and Baldry all play characters who loom large throughout Tolkien's work — but the actors caution that although you might know how their story ends, the journey can still hold surprises.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">Surprises? Do you mean stuff Tolkien never wrote nor intended? Because I know the story of Elendil, Anarion, and Isildur. I know how they get there. It’s not hard to learn that. So the only way I’m expecting to be surprised is if you make stuff up. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But to be fair, maybe they only mean people who’ve watched the Jackson trilogy.
</p><blockquote>"There are signposts on the way," Owen explains, highlighting his regal mariner as a prime example. "Ultimately, those of us that know the lore know Elendil ends up helping to lead the Last Alliance of elves and men. But how he gets there? Tolkien hasn't written the man in three dimensions, and that's the gift of this [show]."</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">I will say that I don't think this section is "prequel-talk" (at least, not for the Jackson films), because I highly doubt people who only watch the trilogy know what Elendil did. He was there--he's Isildur's father, and he dies when Sauron smashes him with the mace, and the sword that broke but that Isildur used to cut off the ring belonged to him--but I don't remember anyone saying Elendil's name until Aragorn calls it "the sword of Elendil". </p></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>One new character is Isildur's sister Eärien, played by Ema Horvath. Invented for the series... Tolkien wrote that Elendil had two sons: Isildur and Anárion. (At the start of Rings of Power, Anárion is off screen.)...</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;">Offscreen, or another “wrong” point? This actually frustrates me. Why are you adding new characters when you can’t put in the characters that already exist? There’s also another character they left off—Elendil’s father Amandil. Remember how the Numenoreans live much longer than normal Men? Elendil’s father was still around. Now for the aforementioned spoilers: Ar-Pharazon leads a fleet to try to land at Valinor, which is forbidden for Men to do. Elendil’s father left for Valinor before Ar-Pharazon did, not to challenge the Valar but to beg for forgiveness and mercy for Numenor, just like his ancestor Earendil did for all of Middle-earth. (The Valar do not grant mercy, a wave covers Numenor and drowns all of them, including Tar-Miriel, except for the followers of Elendil, who were all in ships—the wind carries them to Middle-earth, where they establish Gondor and Arnor.) But no, we can’t have that! We need to invent a new character, because… why? </p>If any of them dare say one word about Tolkien not having enough strong females… <i>they </i>demoted Tar-Miriel, making her regent instead of queen, not Tolkien. <i>They </i>literally took away one of his female character’s power. No. No, no, no. <b>Update! </b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0rJ-r7vV4">This video</a> points out that Miriel was never truly the queen (starting at around 11:30) because Ar-Pharazon immediately usurped Miriel. So I guess, in that sense, Amazon is giving Miriel more power than the effectively had. However, they're taking away the power that was <i>rightfully </i>hers, and demoting her <i>true </i>authority, so I stand by my point that they have no right to claim they're improving female anything in Tolkien. <blockquote>For fans worried about conflicting canon, McKay and Payne point to one of Tolkien's published letters, where he wrote about wanting "other minds and hands" to create art in his legendarium. "We feel like we're taking up the gauntlet that he himself put down," Payne adds. "He gave us what we like to say are the stars in the sky that we have to connect and draw the constellation in."</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Right: 1. Wrong: 3.</b> Plus plenty of questionable stuff. You do not get to claim you are filling in the constellation when you ignore the stars! This is what I meant when I said this doesn't qualify as an adaptation of anything Tolkien wrote. One out of four being correct is not an adaptation. </p></blockquote><p>At the end of my last blog post, I said this:</p><p></p><blockquote>My issue with this show is that they seem to be relying too heavily on what they can do, rather than what they should do. "Tolkien never said Galadriel didn't fight, therefore we're definitely going to have fighting in a war be a major part of her character." That sort of thing. And there's a lot of it--far more than, "This is what Tolkien did say, so this is what we're doing." They seem to be relying too heavily on what they aren't forbidden to do, rather than on what they should do. </blockquote><p></p><p>After reading about the Numenoreans, I feel completely justified in thinking that. They haven't been true to what Tolkien <i>explicitly </i>stated, and I can't see a genuine reason for it. Maybe we'll find out later, but I'm not holding my breath. </p></div>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-4318511822966591682022-06-28T17:26:00.005-07:002022-06-28T17:27:23.042-07:00More About Amazon's Questionable Foray Into Middle-Earth<p> With the school year finally over, I am again able to turn my attention to Rings of Power and all of that nonsense. I mean, it <i>may </i>be good, but I'm very skeptical. </p><p>I haven't yet had a chance to look through the latest information dump, but don't worry, I'll be glancing through that in a couple of weeks. </p><p>But as I was thinking about this while driving, a thought suddenly occurred to me. </p><p>Lots of people have been citing a letter that Tolkien wrote to a fan. (I honestly don't remember if the showrunners were among them, and I'm not hunting for that now.) Here's the text of the letter:</p><p></p><blockquote>Galadriel, like all the other names of elvish persons in The Lord of the Rings, is an invention of
my own. It is in Sindarin form (see Appendices E and F) and means 'Maiden crowned with
gleaming hair'. It is a secondary name given to her in her youth in the far past because she had long
hair which glistened like gold but was also shot with silver. She was then of Amazon disposition
and <b>bound up her hair as a crown</b> when taking part in athletic feats. [<a href="https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf" target="_blank">Source - Letter 348</a>]</blockquote><p></p><p>I could point out that this letter still doesn't give Amazon's new nonsense much of a pass with what they've been doing for a variety of reasons, but I'm going to focus on just one. </p><p>These are the pictures of Galadriel from <i>Rings of Power </i>so far:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/New-Galadriel-Photos-Give-Us-An-Insight-Into-The-Plot-Of-The-Lord-Of-The-Rings-The-Rings-Of-Power-9.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="160" src="https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/New-Galadriel-Photos-Give-Us-An-Insight-Into-The-Plot-Of-The-Lord-Of-The-Rings-The-Rings-Of-Power-9.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.bing.com/th/id/OIP.1MYmUHSwA5N509kDryNufgHaDt?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="237" data-original-width="474" height="160" src="https://www.bing.com/th/id/OIP.1MYmUHSwA5N509kDryNufgHaDt?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-will-show-a-version-of-galadriel-fans-havent-seen-before/bearer-of-one-of-the-rings-of-power-1654816121.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="780" height="180" src="https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-will-show-a-version-of-galadriel-fans-havent-seen-before/bearer-of-one-of-the-rings-of-power-1654816121.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Why does the chainmail around her face look so tattered in this one? Chainmail doesn't tatter like cloth does.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.bing.com/th/id/OIP.9eVu23c31J6tvAFKzmeZqQHaEK?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="266" data-original-width="474" height="180" src="https://www.bing.com/th/id/OIP.9eVu23c31J6tvAFKzmeZqQHaEK?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizg9JyQumicjxUfBVdR3rt_aHpg7F7pMJTrb2jiFKE9-uTgdPw_iDyY4v9OcJWwmWimZw4dV7FM380vEMsuTZI6OH_F3gvIMRzyyIYYRJs67ORjP7xLEr2iw1sIZNrvFtpvNOl41b804ehlT7aL_zWsdg0S7haTnBWwXq0drp_4nvPUwdmkgxHv0U/s960/wallpapersden.com_galadriel-rings-of-power-amazon_540x960.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="540" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizg9JyQumicjxUfBVdR3rt_aHpg7F7pMJTrb2jiFKE9-uTgdPw_iDyY4v9OcJWwmWimZw4dV7FM380vEMsuTZI6OH_F3gvIMRzyyIYYRJs67ORjP7xLEr2iw1sIZNrvFtpvNOl41b804ehlT7aL_zWsdg0S7haTnBWwXq0drp_4nvPUwdmkgxHv0U/s320/wallpapersden.com_galadriel-rings-of-power-amazon_540x960.jpg" width="180" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">This looks so unnatural...</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Notice it? Her hair. None of these pictures show her hair how "bound like a crown" like Tolkien described it for when she was "taking part in athletic feats". <i>Maybe </i>in that one where she has the cloth-chainmail headgear, but we can't see. So why not? That's something so easy to arrange, and it would probably earn you more respect in the eyes of the fans. It would be a point where you can say, "See, here's what Tolkien definitely said, and we definitely followed this, and you can see it clearly."</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Admittedly, this is a minor point. I suppose the showrunners would say something like, "It's showing her growth from hotheaded warrior youth to wise magic user" (I still think that's wrong, but I'll argue against that some other time). In and of itself, not having the proper hair, or using it to show something interpretive, is a minor point. My issue with this show is that they seem to be relying too heavily on what they <i>can </i>do, rather than what they <i>should </i>do. "Tolkien never said Galadriel didn't fight, therefore we're definitely going to have fighting in a war be a major part of her character." That sort of thing. And there's a <i>lot </i>of it--far more than, "This is what Tolkien <i>did </i>say, so this is what we're doing." They seem to be relying too heavily on what they aren't forbidden to do, rather than on what they should do. </div>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-67664414547071647682022-05-16T20:36:00.002-07:002022-05-16T23:07:54.127-07:00The Conversion of Saul is Masterful Storytelling<p> Due to a variety of circumstances, I've heard the story of the Conversion of Saul twice in a row in church now, and it gave me a chance to appreciate how the narrative is written. Luke wrote Acts in a narrative manner, but he seems to have employed particular care with the narrative of Saul's conversion (which makes sense--Saul was Luke's teacher, friend, and traveling companion, and the conversion was the turning point in Saul's life). There are plenty of theological treatises on the miracles, but since I am a writer, I thought it would be interesting and fun to break down and analyze the way Luke built up to the climax of the story and how it highlights certain aspects. </p><p>Quick note: I will of course be using a translated version, and I can't read the original Greek, so this may end up being more of a commentary on how the translator presented the story. </p><p>If you haven't read the story the way the Bible shares it, I recommend <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%209:1-19&version=NIV#:~:text=Acts%209%3A1-19%20NIV%20-%20Saul%E2%80%99s%20Conversion%20-%20Meanwhile%2C,to%20the%20synagogues%20in%20Damascus%2C%20so%20that%20if" target="_blank">reading it all first</a>, just to absorb the series of events as they unfolded. </p><p>Now, to tease it apart:</p><p>For a bit of background, the Book of Acts is Luke's second letter to Theophilus, whoever that was. The first book, Luke, was the story of Christ on earth; Acts is the story of the Apostles and the early Church. Presumably, this means Theophilus might have already known who Paul was, but we don't know. </p><p>The first time Saul is mentioned in Acts, it was at the stoning of Stephen the martyr. He's described thus:</p><blockquote>57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%207&version=NIV" target="_blank">Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.</a></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">What an absolutely flippant and unsuspecting way to introduce Saul. He's a young man holding coats--does this introduction sound like the first appearance of one of the greatest Apostles? I think that's by design. I think Luke is trying to subvert everyone's expectations and catch everyone by surprise. </p><p style="text-align: left;">For what it's worth, this passage suggests to me that Theophilus didn't know Paul's background. If he did, would Luke give an introductory phrase of, "a young man"? But that is a point where the wording may depend on the translation. I suppose it's possible that Luke's actual phrase here didn't sound introductory in Greek. However, in English, this comes across as Luke introducing someone that Theophilus doesn't know yet, and it feels like Luke is building up tension. </p><p style="text-align: left;">After Saul's brief introduction, the next time we hear of him, we hear of the beginning of his persecution of the church:</p><blockquote><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208&version=NIV" target="_blank">And Saul</a> approved of their killing [Stephen].<br /><br />On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">So now, we've gone from holding coats to being a villain. After that, Luke goes through and describes the actions of Philip and Peter for a full chapter. You almost forget Saul was even there. Then Luke says, "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples." It sounds as though Saul is going to become a recurring villain. </p><p style="text-align: left;">It's fascinating to me how mundane Luke's descriptions of Saul are. On the one hand, you don't forget about him, and you're in no doubt that he's a villain. "Murderous threats", approving of killing Stephen, and dragging off men and women for prison make it clear where his loyalties lie. But then, there's also something offhand about these descriptions. They're brief, to the point, and not a lot of detail. Would you ever suspect, from these descriptions, that Saul was on his way to becoming one of the major "heroes", so to speak, of Acts? (Yes, I know Christ is the real hero, but I couldn't think of a better word.) </p><p style="text-align: left;">Then, the events that led to Saul's conversion start to roll:</p><blockquote>He went to the high priest <b>2</b> and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. <b>3</b> As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. <b>4</b> He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”<br /><br /><b>5</b> “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.<br /><br />“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. <b>6</b> “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">What strikes me about this section is that there is no hint of <i>why </i>this happened. Absolutely no explanation. If you're Theophilus, whoever Theophilus was, at first you had to be wondering why Luke even bothered mentioning the young man who was holding coats, and then you have to be thinking he's a villain, and now there's this sudden appearance from Jesus with no explanation about why. Or perhaps, if Theophilus is a more proactive reader, he starts to think that God is about to punish Saul, or that he has just seen God subdue Saul to protect His church. The mighty defending arm of God protecting His children. There is still no real hint of what is to come of Saul's persecution. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Skipping some verses, and Luke talks about how God appeared to Ananias in a dream:</p><blockquote><b>11</b> The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. <b>12 </b>In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”<br /><br /><b>13</b> “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. <b>14 </b>And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”<br /><br /><b>15</b> But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. <b>16</b> I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">That is the first hint anywhere in Acts of what Saul would become. It comes out of absolutely nowhere; the reader doesn't hear about it until the point in the story where the disciple hears about it. There was no foreshadowing, no forewarning, nothing. It's a jolt that makes the reader's jaw drop. </p><p style="text-align: left;">And notice the use of sharp contrast! First bringing up Ananias' worry in order to recap what a villain Saul was, and then immediately saying Jesus' words that describe Saul's destiny. </p><p style="text-align: left;">As I read it, both of these elements--the jaw-dropping jolt and the sharp contrast--serve an important purpose: they show the power of God's grace. Without a warning or any foreshadowing, the reader is expecting Saul to be the villain and is engaged in disliking him and possibly fearing him. Ananias's doubt, although not the strongest point in his faith, also remind us of what Saul was guilty of. You, the reader, are invested in disliking and fearing Saul, viewing him as your enemy, when out of nowhere, he becomes God's chosen disciple who will suffer along with you. Such is the power of God's grace: He will turn those who hate Him to His heralds and followers. This is highlighted by the structure of Luke's narrative. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Now, this all comes with the caveat that reading a 2,000-year-old translated story means I might have missed something that a Greek linguist, Bible scholar, or historian would know and that would make my analysis pointless. If nothing else, all of Luke's dialogue and narrative work could simply be because he was constrained by the fact that he was writing by hand and without much ability to edit. (Seriously, the power of the backspace key is a great blessing to a writer.) But if nothing else, this is an interesting analysis of how a story <i>can </i>employ elements of writing techniques to startle readers and convey ideas without expressly saying them. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Besides, thinking about the story like this has helped me look at it with fresh eyes. I've been hearing this story since I was small enough to read it in the Alice in Bibleland storybook, and I am very confident that I'm not the only one, and it got dull over time. Returning to the origin story for one of the greatest evangelists of history helps me revel in God's grace anew. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-90323955768619990502022-04-23T19:52:00.001-07:002022-04-23T19:52:09.426-07:00Come Play Games With Me!<p> So, I know I've been rather MIA lately (except for when I'm furious with Amazon's "Rings of Power" pseudoadaptation), but I'm hoping to change that this summer and get back to farmers' markets and maybe even some book signings! We'll see what happens. </p><p>But until then, I thought I would let all of my wonderful readers know about a fun event happening in a couple of weeks! A bunch of my old friends and I are hosting a series of game nights, at least one per month, where we're playing some D&D, <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/834/chronology" target="_blank">Chronology</a>, Seven Wonders, Settlers of Cataan, and a variety of other games that we've picked up from a couple of our favorite game cafes. I'll be there learning how to DM, and there'll be lots of other people playing a selection of other games. And pizza will be provided! </p><p>It's at my childhood church, Divine Peace Lutheran Church, so we're making an effort to keep it family friendly. So far, most of the people who have told me they're coming are adults, so I'm not sure all my target readers will find someone else their age there, but they will find lots of friendly people who have no problem playing with anyone and everyone! </p><p>The next one is Saturday, May 14. The address is 17215 128th Ave SE, Renton, 98058, and I can assure you that there is plenty of parking. The doors open at 2:30, the D&D campaigns begin at 3, and the pizza will be delivered at about 5, at which point we'll take a break for dinner and talking. Everyone will be politely shooed out at 8:30 PM so that the organizers can go home. You don't need to bring anything! Although, if there's a game you really want to play but no one will play it with you (like my Dad and Chronology!) you are welcome to bring that by and look for other players!</p><p>I hope to see some of my illustrious readers there!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNqdms8hv3_ZFCRc-_5RFalMOKEva5ptLDdjAY2LiWOkgNuRV582gHcht3oJluqAt6l2vxdwv7aR04x0axd1N3zuGbZOUN9VL-pYWRq9oZ3xWczVXTNMF4K9D0ORbm6V6ltvm3KxZqbb_fqiZB4-VrGAqoVqiS_RT11roE_StGMNOh6feqaxz5exQ/s866/May%202022.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="866" data-original-width="651" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNqdms8hv3_ZFCRc-_5RFalMOKEva5ptLDdjAY2LiWOkgNuRV582gHcht3oJluqAt6l2vxdwv7aR04x0axd1N3zuGbZOUN9VL-pYWRq9oZ3xWczVXTNMF4K9D0ORbm6V6ltvm3KxZqbb_fqiZB4-VrGAqoVqiS_RT11roE_StGMNOh6feqaxz5exQ/s16000/May%202022.jpg" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-45662347855308683722022-04-14T23:15:00.005-07:002022-04-14T23:15:35.697-07:00Was Galadriel Wearing Armor In the Second Age? <p> In case you can't tell, I'm really not happy about this upcoming series. When some of the creators say<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwWByAQ13w" target="_blank"> it doesn't matter what Tolkien would have wanted</a>, I see no reason to be hopeful or optimistic, and very little that Amazon has said has swayed my mind. </p><p>Yes, I cringe at the idea of turning Galadriel into a "warrior" instead of a magic-user, and I cringe especially strongly at some of the justification for it. </p><p>First, <a href="https://decider.com/2022/02/14/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-teaser-trailer-galadriel-morfydd-clark/?msclkid=f9637586bc7411ec94347f70ed1e0bbf" target="_blank">this lady from Decider</a> has made an explanation for why she's happy to see a warrior Galadriel, and here is the part of her writing that I thought was most key to understanding her position: </p><blockquote>So what do we know for sure about Galadriel in the Second Age? Not much, as Tolkien drafted some contradictory stories in his notes. However, throughout <i>The Silmarillion</i>, Tolkien depicts Galadriel as unique amongst elven women. She is not only name-checked alongside her brothers in accounts of her family’s arduous journey out of the West, across the frigid North into Middle-earth, but Tolkien describes her thusly: “But Galadriel, the only woman of the Noldar to stand that day tall and valiant among the contending princes, was eager to be gone. No oaths she swore, but the words of Fëanor concerning Middle-earth had kindled in her heart; for she yearned to see the wide unguarded lands and to rule there a realm at her own will.”<br /><br />If you take anything from that passage, it’s that Galadriel was ambitious in her youth. She was willing to take risks if it meant great reward. Oh, and she was “the only woman” of her ilk to behave like this. So, yeah, it’s totally conceivable that a younger Galadriel would happily battle her way through Middle-earth in pursuit of some great evil that she believes still lingers. She would probably do it in, I don’t know, proper armor!</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Let me start off by commending her. I think she's the only journalist who's cited <i>the books</i>, and not some letter that Tolkien wrote that was only released after his death. So as far as arguments in favor of the show goes, she stands head and shoulders above most of the others. </p><p style="text-align: left;">However, I too have read <i>The Silmarillion</i>, and I have read and reread everything about Galadriel in that book, so allow me to share my own point of view. </p><p style="text-align: left;">First off, it is unquestionably true that Galadriel is described alongside her brothers, and described more than most elven ladies in <i>Silmarillion. </i>There is another Noldor lady--<a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Aredhel?msclkid=0ab4adb8bc7811ec8a71d74b851e6df2" target="_blank">Aredhel</a>, Galadriel's cousin, who isn't named in the exit scene but who does come up later in the story (and, by the way, does more in the <i>Silmarillion </i>than Galadriel does)--but yes, Galadriel gets special treatment. By the way, what is this "throughout the <i>Silmarillion</i>" line? I have the Kindle ebook, so I did a search for Galadriel's name. In the second edition of <i>The Silmarillion</i>, her name appears 39 times, including the prologue, the letter at the beginning, the glossary, the epilogue that summarizes what happened in the trilogy, and phrases like "their son Dior Eluchil had to wife Nimloth, kinswoman of Celeborn, prince of Doriath, who was wedded to the Lady Galadriel". For comparison, Melian's name shows up 109 times, and Luthien's 157 times. But let's not get off topic--the point is that Galadriel being shown as <i>special</i> and tall and proud among the princes still doesn't mean she's a <i>warrior</i>. It just means that she's influential among them. It is absolutely possible to influence warriors without being a warrior yourself. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Same for being ambitious--you can be ambitious and still be a magic-user rather than a warrior. </p><p style="text-align: left;">As for Galadriel battling evil in armor, why? Why would she probably use armor? She would depend on her magic. And if you think I'm making that up, consider: Luthien went to battle against <i>Sauron </i>with no armor. All she had was her magic cloak woven out of her hair. Or, at another time, when Aredhel was riding to join the sons of Feanor, Eol the dark elf "saw Aredhel Ar-Feiniel as she strayed among the tall trees near the border of Nan Elmoth, a gleam of white in the dim land" (126). Unless the "gleam of white" somehow means armor, it sounds like Aredhel was wearing a white dress while she was going to see the sons of Feanor, and given that "she was never arrayed but in silver and white" (51), it sounds to me like she was wearing a white dress. In other words, the lady elves wore a lot of dresses even when leaving the safety of their cities and traveling abroad and joining the warrior sons of Feanor or combatting Sauron. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Think of the...</p><p style="text-align: left;">The...</p><p style="text-align: left;">*pauses to facepalm*</p><p style="text-align: left;">Think of the scene from <i>Battle of Five Armies </i>when Galadriel takes on Sauron and the nine Ringwraiths, and while yes, I know fully well that Peter Jackson made that scene and not Tolkien, it clearly demonstrates the power that magic has in a battle. (The rabbits are still stupid and what is with this attempt at making a relationship between Galadriel and Gandalf, yuck!) But if we were to see Galadriel fighting orcs--even in <i>The Silmarillion</i>--there is nothing or no hint to suggest she wouldn't fight as a sorceress. </p><p style="text-align: left;">(I'm defending <i>that </i>movie. Good grief, I'm actually defending <i>that </i>movie. What is the world coming to...)</p><p style="text-align: left;">One point that I agree with but that is still pointless in the series, though, is this: Galadriel was clearly not <i>always</i> the wise Elven queen that she was in the trilogy. Fair enough. Therefore, the question is <i>when </i>she became the wise Elven queen of the trilogy. The TV series wants to make it be during the Second Age, but I disagree strenuously. I would argue that it most likely happened during <i>The Silmarillion</i>. </p><p style="text-align: left;">You see, that passage cited in the above article happens early in the story--page 74 in my version--and much of what Galadriel does is later. After crossing into Middle-earth, Galadriel lived in Doriath with Thingol and Melian, and Galadriel spent time with Melian (120-121). Melian even confides in Galadriel when she predicts Beren's coming into Doriath, rather than in her husband (139). Granted, that scene is the last we hear of Galadriel actually <i>doing </i>anything in <i>The Silmarillion </i>besides not returning to Valinor, and I don't know that I would describe her earlier interaction with Melian as particularly penitent, but still, we can see that Galadriel and Melian develop a bond. Galadriel stays with Melian. The Maia. The wise, eternal, Maia. The Maia who gives her counsel to Thingol. </p><p style="text-align: left;">If I <i>had </i>to guess, I would say that the mentorship from a Maia probably had a pretty big impact on Galadriel's temperament, wouldn't you say? </p><p style="text-align: left;">Even if it didn't, <i>The Silmarillion </i>is a tragedy of the Noldor, not just a story about defeating evil. The Noldor are clearly culpable for so much of what happened. And, if I'm not much mistaken, Galadriel was stuck in not one, but two of the Noldors' kinslaying, both at Doriath and later at... at... I can't remember what it's called, but it's the place where Elwing ruled and threw herself off the cliff rather than give the Silmaril to the sons of Feanor. My point is, why do we need <i>more </i>to change Galadriel into the wise elf queen that we all recognize from the trilogy? <i>We have enough</i>. The <i>Silmarillion </i>gives plenty of reasons for Galadriel to have grown up and wised up. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I do have a few more articles about Galadriel that I want to go through, but it's late, tomorrow is Good Friday, and this post is already pretty long. Let me finish up by saying that the article I referenced in this post quoted <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/the-lord-of-the-rings-teaser-trailer-amazon" target="_blank">this article</a> from Vanity Fair, which clarifies my question in my earlier post--which brother? It is indeed going to be Finrod Felagund, the one who died in the saga of Beren and Luthien. I maintain my worry--even if Amazon properly respected the iconic story (and I don't believe for a moment that they do), how <i>can </i>they possibly do it justice without all the rights to the First Age? Even if they're allowed to reference it, what else can they do? I mean, can you make that a <i>focal point </i>of a character and still not develop it fully? I'm... I'm skeptical. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-76408625350150932052022-04-10T22:49:00.001-07:002022-04-10T22:53:58.737-07:00Galadriel's... Brother?<p> If you read my blog, then you've likely heard about Amazon's recent foray into high fantasy. They have acquired the rights to Tolkien's Second Age, the time after the <i>Silmarillion </i>and before the events of <i>The Hobbit</i>. </p><p>I haven't read the <i>Book of Lost Tales</i> yet, so it's not my strong suit when it comes to Middle-Earth lore, but if you read the chapter in the Silmarillion called Akallabeth, you will see a summary of the kingdom of Numenor during the Second Age. It doesn't tell much about the elves or the dwarves, but that wasn't the point. The story is how Numenor fell. But I must admit, that is my primary knowledge about the Second Age. </p><p>Amazon has rights exclusively to the Second Age, and, if I'm understanding the situation correctly, they have no rights to anything exclusive to the <i>Silmarillion. </i>Only the Second Age. </p><p>Now, all of this brings me to Vanity Fair's <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/amazon-the-rings-of-power-series-first-look?msclkid=b42e7d6fb90011ec93b0a43567c97959" target="_blank">teaser article</a> about the series. (Why does Vanity Fair have this article? They're a fashion and celebrity gossip magazine, not... whatever.) The article and the subsequent Amazon Super Bowl trailer, as you no doubt are aware, left fans indignant and rather unwilling to trust that Amazon really wanted to tell a true Tolkienian story--and rather suspicious that the show could be any good. What's the like-to-dislike ratio on Amazon's trailer on YouTube? It was quite bad, last time I checked. </p><p>There is no shortage of fan indignation at some of these bizarre changes. Plenty of people have complained that none of the elves look like elves (<a href="https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/things-that-have-us-worried-about-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-series/can-they-handle-so-many-characters-1648501444.webp" target="_blank">this guy</a> looks like he's in a <i>House </i>episode about cosplaying, and what <i>did </i>they do to <a href="https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/things-that-have-us-worried-about-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-series/will-rings-of-power-be-unique-or-run-of-the-mill-fantasy-1648506909.webp" target="_blank">Elrond</a>?). If we're talking about the multi-race Elves, I don't necessarily care one way or the other, but if you want a really good idea of my concerns about that change, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwWByAQ13w" target="_blank">this video</a> absolutely nails it (short version, it's not that they did this, it's <i>why </i>they did this). My cousin pointed out that the idea of making Elrond a political schemer--the guy who refused a kingship <i>before </i>the events of this new series, and who built a Homely House instead of a castle--is ridiculous and rather antithetical to much of Tolkien's points. As <a href="https://www.looper.com/814612/things-that-have-us-worried-about-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-series/?msclkid=d9e64a72b90411ec86c8753a2b859e27" target="_blank">this article</a> points out, the new series is creating a whole host of new characters, and adding new characters is the last thing any Middle-Earth story needs, because Tolkien never lacked characters. Actually, I have to show this hilarious point from that Looper article: </p><p></p><blockquote><p>Even more concerning is Patrick McKay's quote in Vanity Fair, where he says, "One of the very specific things the texts say is that hobbits never did anything historic or noteworthy before the Third Age. But really, does it feel like Middle-earth if you don't have hobbits or something like hobbits in it?"</p><p>Umm, yes, it does. Most of Tolkien's stories don't have hobbits, and they still hold up fine.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>That entire Looper article seems to be the most honest about fans' reactions, so it's worth reading in its entirety. </p><p>As I said, there has been plenty of discussion (most of it very irate) regarding the series, but here is one thing from the Vanity Fair article that piqued my interest but no one else has mentioned:</p><blockquote>If you’re not up-to-date on your ages, the second one is (seemingly) a time of peace for Middle-earth after an era of horror and conflict. The wicked god Morgoth has been defeated, and his apprentice, Sauron, has vanished. As the series begins, Galadriel is hunting down the last remnants of their collaborators, who claimed the life of her brother.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Her... brother? How exactly does Amazon plan to do that if they don't have the rights to <i>Silmarillion?</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">For context, <a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Orodreth?msclkid=06a16095b93f11ec9e93fdd51efdab17#House_of_Finarfin" target="_blank">Galadriel had 4 brothers</a>: Aegnor, Angrod, Orodreth (in earlier versions--page 51 of the second edition of <i>Silmarillion</i>), and Finrod Felagund. I put them in order of importance. <a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Aegnor" target="_blank">Aegnor </a>didn't do much and died and <a href="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Angrod" target="_blank">Angrod </a>was the grandfather of Gil-galad, but neither of those were all that important for themselves, in my opinion. The other two, however, played rather integral roles to the plot of <i>Silmarillion</i>. Orodreth--who, in early versions was Galadriel's brother, and in later versions was her nephew--was a little more important. He figured prominently in a rather important part of the Silmarillion. The last and oldest one, Finrod Felegund, was one of the most important characters in one of the most important portions of the <i>Silmarillion</i>. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The <i>Silmarillion </i>covers thousands of years of history, but a huge portion of it suddenly swoops in and focuses on about a hundred years or so in these four stories. The first half or so talks about the creation of Middle-earth, the rise of the Elves, the fight of Morgoth, etc., etc. Then you get to the story about Beren and Luthien, and all of a sudden, all the stories come very close together in time. Which makes sense--I'm pretty sure Tolkien wrote <i>Beren and Luthien </i>before he wrote any other part of the <i>Silmarillion. </i>It's the story that Aragorn sings to the hobbits early in the <i>Fellowship</i>, when they're still on their way to Weathertop. Immediately after <i>Beren and Luthien </i>comes the story of Turin; following that, it's the story about the fall of Gondolin and Turin's cousin Tuor; and after that, it's the story of Tuor's son, Earendil the Mariner, which almost ends <i>Silmarillion</i>. Those are sort of the four great stories of <i>Silmarillion</i>. All of those except for Turin's story are referenced somewhere in <i>Fellowship</i>, at least in the book. To the best of my memory, only Beren and Luthien were mentioned in the movie:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fO9vymA8-vo" width="320" youtube-src-id="fO9vymA8-vo"></iframe></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">All of this is to say that these are important stories. They're important even into the trilogy. </p><p style="text-align: left;">What does any of this have to do with Galadriel's brothers? Well, this "brother" that Sauron and his minions kills must be one of these four men. But which one is it? All four of them are in the <i>Silmarillion</i>, but I'm not sure how much Amazon can get away with using any of them without having the rights, <i>especially </i>of the last two. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In Turin's story, Orodreth is the king of Nargothrond, and his daughter is in love with Turin. Orodreth listens to Turin's advice--rather ill-advisedly (Turin is not an Aragorn-like hero)--and a lot of these actions propel part of the plot of Turin's story. But then, because Orodreth was changed to Galadriel's nephew in later writings (and because these Amazon show-makers seem to have read everything Tolkien wrote except the actual books), I'm going to guess that he isn't the one they're talking about. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The one that the article is most likely talking about is Finrod Felagund. Vanity Fair says this brother was killed by Sauron and his minions, and that fits Felagund's story, as he was killed in Sauron's prison... in the story of <i>Beren and Luthien</i>. He's an integral part of the story, first because he meets Beren's grandfather (great-grandfather?) and is the first Elf to meet mortal Men, but secondly, because he and several of his warriors escort Beren as far as Sauron's tower. Felagund fights Sauron--and loses. Then he's put in prison and Sauron's minions kill him. </p><p style="text-align: left;">In Beren and Luthien. In the story of <u>Beren and Luthien</u>. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The story of Beren and Luthien is integral to Middle-earth lore. It's so integral that it's the only one of the great stories referenced in Jackson's trilogy, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO9vymA8-vo" target="_blank">on his and his wife's tombstone</a>, Tolkien refers to himself as Beren and his wife as Luthien. It is incredibly important to the whole legendarium of Middle-earth, and Felagund is important to that story. </p><p style="text-align: left;">And Amazon doesn't have the rights to that story. </p><p style="text-align: left;">So, um... what is the backstory? What are they going to say for this? I mean, do they have the legal rights to <i>reference </i>it? I fully admit that I don't know how that works. But the thing is, how are they going to talk about how Galadriel's brother died at Sauron's hands without actually telling the most iconic story of the <i>Silmarillion</i>? Or can they? </p><p style="text-align: left;"><i>What are they going to do? </i>I mean, do they think they can get away with only briefly mentioning, "My brother was killed by Sauron", have all the die-hard fans know exactly what story that's referencing, but actually not reference it? Are they going to skirt around it to avoid legal blowback? Or do they plan to just say, "My older brother", without going into detail about <i>Beren and Luthien</i>? </p><p style="text-align: left;">In the trilogy, that scene where Aragorn is singing about Luthien is directly in the book, so that must be how Jackson got the rights to have that scene. But is there a scene like that in any of the stuff that Amazon has the rights to adapt? </p><p style="text-align: left;">I've seen enough of the new <i>Mulan </i>disaster to know that they play the tunes of the old songs without ever once having any of the lyrics there, and that's just abysmal when you think about the purpose of having that particular soundtrack. You only get the full enjoyment of the movie if you've seen this one other movie. How much <i>worse </i>would that be for a Middle-earth saga? </p><p style="text-align: left;">Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what creative rights Amazon has. Maybe they have the right to reference <i>Silmarillion </i>material but not adapt it? Maybe one of the pieces they have the rights to mentions Felagund, so that's how they're referencing him? I'm not sure. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But I have to say, if they try to get away with a glancing reference to the most iconic story of <i>Silmarillion</i>, and think that will not stick out like a sore thumb and just be incredibly awkward... </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-72809751384411367482021-11-23T18:50:00.003-08:002021-11-23T18:50:50.824-08:00Last Remaining Christmas Bazaar of 2021!<p> Hahahahahaha! That makes it sound like I went to a whole lot this year! (Instead of only two.)</p><p>The second and last one that I'm going to be at this year is the <a href="https://fb.me/e/1Wcx1001J" target="_blank">Seattle Christian Annual Christmas Bazaar</a>. For those who don't know, I went to SCS for elementary and middle school. I haven't been back to the SCS show in... goodness, in a while. I <i>think </i>before <i>Graystone </i>was published? </p><p>So stop by and say hello! I will see you there!</p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-9875575105796355002021-09-27T19:57:00.001-07:002021-09-27T19:57:21.360-07:00I Can’t Comment<p> For whatever reason, Blogger won’t let me stay logged in to comment. 🙄 Every time I write a comment, it logs me out. I’m not sure why, and I’ll try to fix it when I have time. </p><p>So if you’re wondering why I haven’t responded to your comments, that’s why. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-91903376162205127362021-09-25T17:07:00.003-07:002021-09-25T17:07:52.207-07:00Crookedstar is the Best Character in the Warriors Series<p>Possibly a tall claim for a series that has more than 400 cats in it, but hear me out. (I swear I read one of the editor's blog posts that they had 400 cats, but I can't find it now! It's somewhere over <a href="https://warriorcats.com/clans-cats/clans/riverclan" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p><p>To be clear, I'm only talking about the series before Power of Three, because I haven't read past that chronologically. For me, the Warriors series was about escaping into the world and learning about the ways of the clans, so when the world and the ways started to change so dramatically, it lost all the point and purpose for me. I slogged through Power of Three, but it wasn't the same, so I never read beyond that. (Also, I absolutely hated Hollyleaf. I thought she was selfish, judgmental, and cruel.) I have, however, voraciously devoured the Super Edition books that happened before the first series, which cover the early lives of Bluestar, Crookedstar, Tallstar, and Yellowfang. Of all of them, and all the cats, Crookedstar stands out as best character, not just because he is honorable and friendly, but because he is the character who broke the mold. </p><p>So first, let's point out the mold that Crookedstar was in: he was the cat who was rejected by a parent, treated sort of "off" by his clan (for a while), and was on the receiving end of cruelty and misfortune. As a kit, Goosefeather chased him until he fell and broke his jaw, which led to his mother rejecting him (and favoring his brother with such phrases as, "He'll never be as good as you!"), his clan not being sure how to act around him, not being able to be an apprentice until he was nearly full-grown, and living with general unpleasantness. </p><p>His story is remarkably similar to the other <i>three </i>antagonists of the first series: Brokenstar, Tigerstar, and Scourge. Brokenstar's mother never stopped loving him but had to give him up (to a she-cat who didn't want him and whose kits taunted and bullied him-- that was in <i>Yellowfang's Secret</i>), Tigerstar's father abandoned him and the entire clan to be a kittypet so that ThunderClan basically spoiled Tigerstar (that was in <i>Bluestar's Prophecy</i>), and <a href="https://warriors.fandom.com/wiki/Scourge" target="_blank">Scourge </a>was bullied by his littermates and threatened with drowning in the river (I haven't read that one). </p><p>So it seems as though, because of this mold, Crookedstar should have been a tyrant. He should have been cruel, selfish, obsessed with strength, and so on. <i>But he wasn't</i>.</p><p>If we're to follow the rules of the stories--not <i>necessarily </i>the rules of reality, but the rules of the <i>story</i>--Crookedstar beat the worst odds of any character. When characters in this series are routinely subjected to unkindness, being outcast, or just different treatment, they have the risk of becoming Brokenstar. But Crookedstar didn't. </p><p>My favorite part of <i>Crookedstar's Promise </i>(which, in a series renowned for being sad and emotionally painful, is both the saddest and the absolute happiest book all at once) is when Crookedstar discovers he hasn't been training with StarClan at all, but with the Dark Forest. In absolutely no time at all, Crookedstar turns his back on them, rejects their claims that they care more for him than RiverClan, and returns to care for his clan and protect them. It's <i>such </i>a powerful moment, because that is the moment where Brokenstar, Tigerstar, and Scourge all failed. They weren't all with the Dark Forest (were any of them? I'm not sure), but when they were told that cruelty, selfishness, and general evil meant more acceptance and respect for them, they all accepted it; Crookedstar rejected it. </p><p>I kind of think that might have been the authors' point--first of all, that we aren't bound to a certain future because of our past, and secondly, that the three antagonists made their <i>choices</i>, and that they <i>could </i>have chosen differently, but didn't. </p><p>That's not to say that Crookedstar didn't have support from his family. For example, at the second turning point, at the end of the book--where he's rejected Mapleshade yet again, but is in danger of doing the same thing to Silverstream that Rainflower did to him--his brother gets in his face and tells him to do the right thing. (Also a beautiful moment that makes <i>Forest of Secrets </i>even more agonizing than it already was.) But so did the other three, and it didn't save them. </p><p>I love <i>Crookedstar's Promise</i>, I love the characters in the book, I love RiverClan best of the clans, and I loved reading more about Crookedstar. In the first series, he always came across as an honorable, discerning, responsible cat trying to fulfill his responsibilities without being capricious. Comparing him to the characters who he could have been very similar to just makes me like him even more. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.o9MoJK_A4VwkFlFAvUjj_QAAAA?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="286" height="421" src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.o9MoJK_A4VwkFlFAvUjj_QAAAA?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" width="286" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-3096064398783083122021-08-12T11:24:00.003-07:002021-08-12T12:55:52.497-07:00The Federal Government is Abysmal At Preserving History<p style="text-align: left;">Did you all know that our country has an <a href="https://history.state.gov/about" target="_blank">Office of the Historian</a>? Apparently, their primary concern is America's foreign relations and documents, as well as advising the government. So who do I complain to, and about, for what I've discovered in the last few months? Evidently not them. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I have spent I-don't-know-how-long on the Library of Congress's archives for the speeches from Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, and they still come as images. <a href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=022/llcg022.db&recNum=332" target="_blank">Scanned images!</a> Unsearchable images! Not even a PDF. <a href="https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/online/jpg-to-pdf.html?mv=search&ef_id=c9c69ad0e8ca126b42e5fbc5bcecafe8:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!3085!10!79096278203211!79096588561561&msclkid=c9c69ad0e8ca126b42e5fbc5bcecafe8" target="_blank">Adobe can convert images to PDF's</a>, and then turn them into searchable PDF's! Are you telling me that the government that spent <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2014/06/20/usda-provides-8-million-help-boost-declining-honey-bee-population" target="_blank">$8 million on honeybees</a> can't afford to pay for Adobe? Get Adobe, hire some college intern to spend the summer converting the documents and saving them! Maybe they can get college credit for it--history credit, so if they're a person who doesn't want to take a history class, they don't have to. They can get their credit by helping history teachers, and they never have to be stuck in a class they don't want to take. Everyone wins!</p><p style="text-align: left;">Oh, but that's not the main subject of my frustrations today, oh no. I seem to be on this WWII history binge lately, which has led me to remember one of the most exasperating stories of the US government's historical preservation. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Everyone knows about the <i>USS Arizona </i>at Pearl Harbor, but anyone who has ever watched the masterpiece movie that is <i>Tora! Tora! Tora! </i>may remember another battleship that made a name for itself: the <i>USS Nevada</i>. The <i>Nevada </i>was commissioned during WWI, and she was the only battleship at Pearl Harbor's attack that <a href="https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/battleships/nevada-bb-36.html" target="_blank">was able to get underway</a>; she tried to escape Pearl Harbor (<a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/after-surviving-pearl-harbor-battleship-uss-nevada-kept-fighting-174277?page=0%2C2" target="_blank">under the command of <i>junior </i>officers, not the captain!</a>), but was torpedoed too many times, and ended up grounded on the side of the harbor. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/after-surviving-pearl-harbor-battleship-uss-nevada-kept-fighting-174277?page=0%2C2" target="_blank">National Interest</a> may or may not be a reliable source, but according to that article, men at Pearl Harbor watching the Nevada struggling to get out of the harbor were inspired and encouraged by the ship's defiance to fight even harder. Can you imagine you're at Pearl Harbor, and the <i>Arizona </i>was already destroyed, but you suddenly see another battleship underway, her American flag flying in all the smoke? It's not all over, your fleet hasn't been destroyed, there is still a reason to fight on! </p><p style="text-align: left;">That's a wonderful story in and of itself, of defiance and courage, but the <i>Nevada's </i>story doesn't stop there! </p><p style="text-align: left;">After fighting at <a href="https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/battleships/nevada-bb-36.html" target="_blank">Attu </a>in Alaska in 1943, she was transferred to the Atlantic, I assume as part of the Europe First policy. And what did she do in the Atlantic? After participating in convoys in the North Atlantic, she was at the D-Day landings at Normandy! Her <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/after-surviving-pearl-harbor-battleship-uss-nevada-kept-fighting-174277?page=0%2C3" target="_blank">task </a>was to shell the beaches before the troops landed. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But even <i>that </i>isn't where her story ends! She was transferred again to the Pacific, where she took place in the landing on Iwo Jima, the battle that had the famous picture of American Marines raising the flag. And then, she went on to Okinawa, where she was hit by a kamikaze but still survived! </p><p style="text-align: left;">So the uplifting ship from Pearl Harbor that went to D-Day, also participated in two famous battles in the Pacific, and survived a kamikaze--have we missed anything? These were four of the most famous battles in WWII, and the <i>Nevada </i>was at all of them. What an important ship! So where is she now? What did the US military do with this amazing ship? </p><p style="text-align: left;">Well, according to <a href="https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/battleships/nevada-bb-36.html" target="_blank">Naval History and Heritage Command</a>:</p><blockquote>She was too old for retention in the post-war fleet, and was assigned to serve as a target during the July 1946 atomic bomb tests at Bikini, in the Marshall Islands. That experience left her damaged and radioactive, and she was formally decommissioned in August 1946. After two years of inactivity, USS Nevada was towed to sea off the Hawaiian islands and sunk by gunfire and torpedos.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">What? <i>Target practice</i>? </p><p style="text-align: left;">You...</p><p style="text-align: left;">You...</p><p style="text-align: left;">YOU ABSOLUTE MORONS WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?! How <i>could </i>you?</p><p style="text-align: left;">It's not like the US is incapable of preserving ships from WWII! <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/uss-yorktown.htm" target="_blank">Four </a><a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/uss-hornet.htm?utm_source=article&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=experience_more&utm_content=small" target="_blank">separate </a><a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/uss-intrepid.htm?utm_source=article&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=experience_more&utm_content=large" target="_blank">aircraft </a><a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-uss-lexington.htm?utm_source=article&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=experience_more&utm_content=small" target="_blank">carriers </a>are saved as national parks all around the country, and not one of them was at <i>all </i>the famous battles that the <i>Nevada </i>was! </p><p style="text-align: left;">Oh, but it gets even better. The atomic blasts <i>couldn't </i>sink the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/uss-nevada-shipwreck-discovered-pacific" target="_blank">ship</a>, but she was made radioactive so that no one <i>could </i>visit her like those aircraft carriers. Then, <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/after-surviving-pearl-harbor-battleship-uss-nevada-kept-fighting-174277?page=0%2C4" target="_blank">three battleships</a> tried to sink her for target practice, and even <i>they </i>couldn't sink her! It was a torpedo from a plane that finally sank the ship! This tough ship with a fabulous history that survived Pearl Harbor, a kamikaze, and atomic blasts, and... and..</p><p style="text-align: left;">The wreckage was <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-nevada-battleship-pearl-harbor-wreckage-found/" target="_blank">found </a>in 2020, and I can't help but hope that someone with their head screwed on straight has some plans to raise the ship. I mean, the British raised a ship from <a href="https://maryrose.org/" target="_blank">Tudor England</a>, so it's not like the US doesn't have the technologies to raise a ship that's only a hundred-some years old. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Think about it, just <i>imagine </i>the educational potential of this thing. In a visit to one ship, just one ship, an American can learn about Pearl Harbor, Europe First, the importance of convoys and logistics in war, D-Day, Iwo Jima and its horrible costs, kamikazes, the high death toll at Okinawa and the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb, and atomic research that continued into the Cold War. That's about half of the important bullet points about WWII, and in only one ship! But no, oh no, that's not an experience the federal government saw fit to preserve. </p><p style="text-align: left;">And why didn't the <i>Nevada </i>deserve to be made into a monument? Why did she deserve it any less than the <i>Arizona </i>or any of those four aircraft carriers? </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2020/05/13/eaaa5b75-f76a-4eea-9ba5-34e6cb473c12/thumbnail/620x450/c66504303dce0412664f6b1a79d27a94/uss-nevada.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="620" height="450" src="https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2020/05/13/eaaa5b75-f76a-4eea-9ba5-34e6cb473c12/thumbnail/620x450/c66504303dce0412664f6b1a79d27a94/uss-nevada.jpg" width="620" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: left;">It's not like me to rant about the federal government <i>not </i>spending money, but this ship definitely qualifies in my book. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-78956829561763159202021-08-12T09:45:00.006-07:002021-08-17T11:20:48.248-07:00Responding to the Foundation for Economic Freedom and the Washington Examiner: The Atomic Bomb<p> Oh, it's that time of year again! On <a href="https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/atomic-bomb-hiroshima" target="_blank">August 6th</a>, the first atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima; days later, after the Japanese did not surrender, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.</p><p>Now, I've been to the <a href="http://www.hpmmuseum.jp/?lang=eng" target="_blank">Hiroshima museum</a>, and I've read horrifying accounts of what happened. The bomb was a serious, sobering, horrifying event, and anyone who says otherwise, I encourage you to read more about it. Whether you believe it was necessary or not, it was definitely something that, on its own, was not a light action. </p><p>Which brings me to <a href="https://fee.org/articles/ike-and-leahy-were-right-the-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-were-wrong/?fbclid=IwAR3AaYaIu22fTsXYRhQ5I97KXa96ajMEGAIA167LrzoFnXEKtefqBkylTEA" target="_blank">this article</a> from the Foundation for Economic Freedom, with the title that goes, "Ike and Leahy Were Right: The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Were Wrong; The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands cannot be justified under any circumstances." </p><p>Now, the title itself is nothing extraordinary, and nor is it a particularly uncommon point of view. What intrigued me were the particulars of this author's arguments (and what he left out). So I'm going to go through parts of this and add some context. To be clear, I don't bear any ill will against the author (Alan Mosley, if you're curious), but I also don't think he made a very strong case. </p><p>Furthermore, he links to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong" target="_blank">an article</a> that links to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bombing-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-was-the-right-thing-to-do" target="_blank">another article</a> <i>defending </i>the atomic bomb, by a gentleman called Micahel Barone, that... also doesn't make a very strong case. So, let's analyze these different articles.</p><p>Now, full disclosure: I'm not going to be explaining which side I support. I teach this topic in class, and like any history teacher, I don't want my students to be influenced by my opinion. I want them to be influenced by facts only. </p><p>Besides, I love talking about history, and finding someone's fairly well-researched article that still has some flaws in it is a great excuse to talk about history. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Understanding the Situation</h3><p style="text-align: left;">To Mr. Mosley's credit, he pointed out that the USSR, led by Josef Stalin, had gotten involved in east Asia (after their western border was shored up). And in order to understand the war in the Pacific, we must understand the situation between Japan, the United States, <i>and the USSR</i>. However, I noticed that he missed a rather crucial part of international concern, so let's dig into that here. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Remember, first of all, that the first conflict of WWII wasn't in Europe--it was in Asia, when Japan invaded China. According to Rana Mitter's book <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Ally-Chinas-World-1937-1945/dp/0544334507" target="_blank">Forgotten Ally</a> </i>(I've been listening to it on audiobook, and I don't know how to cite specific locations in audiobooks--not that I could find that location again anyway), Stalin was politically involved in the three-way fight in China, between the Chinese Nationals, the Chinese Communists, and the Japanese (and not always in supporting the communists, ironically). So the USSR was displaying interest in Asia, even before the invasion of Poland. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Fast forward to 1939 and the <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-molotov-ribbentrop-pact-august-1939" target="_blank">Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact</a>. This pact laid out the USSR's entry into an alliance with Germany, but the <i>secret </i>parts included imperialistic plans for Germany and the USSR to divide eastern Europe between them--a direct plan to conquer countries, in other words. So at the beginning of the war, there were <i>four </i>Axis powers--Germany, Italy, Japan, <i>and the USSR</i>. The USSR was a <i>belligerent</i>. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Fast forward again to 1941 and <a href="https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/operation-barbarossa" target="_blank">Operation Barbarossa</a>, when Hitler unexpectedly invaded the USSR. Stalin was<a href="https://www.cia.gov/static/467292f7793d09d5125d5001262d22ef/Review-What-Stalin-Knew.pdf" target="_blank"> astonished at the invasion </a>and had actually refused to believe a staggering amount of evidence that Hitler didn't sincerely hold to the Pact. (Rana Mitter says that even Chiang Kai-shek was less surprised than Stalin!) Following Operation Barbarossa, of course, the USSR switched sides. I cannot stress this enough--the USSR was <i>kicked out </i>of the Axis. Stalin joined the Allies, not because he <i>agreed </i>with the Allies, or because he had rejected any of the Axis, but because he had no other choice. (Except possibly fighting both the Allies and the Axis at once, but I don't think even Stalin was maniacal enough for that.) </p><p style="text-align: left;">Fast forward again to 1943-1945. Beginning in 1943, there were a series of conferences including the <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/104429.htm" target="_blank">Tehran Conference</a>, the <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/yalta-conf" target="_blank">Yalta Conference</a>, and the <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/potsdam-conf" target="_blank">Potsdam Conference</a>. These conferences discussed what would happen <i>after </i>the Allies won. The main item to focus on is the <a href="https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116176.pdf?v=66b99cbbf4a1b8de10c56b38cf4fc50d" target="_blank">Yalta Conference's declaration</a>, which, when discussing the fate of Japan, promised the USSR several things: USSR dominance in the Chinese city of Dairen/<a href="http://www.world-guides.com/asia/china/liaoning/dalian/dalian_history.html#:~:text=Ancient%20History%20Dalian%20sits%20at%20a%20location%20in,area%20into%20northern%20Korea%20to%20conquer%20the%20peninsula." target="_blank">Dalian</a>, control over a Chinese railroad that led to Dalian, and control of new islands. This was all in exchange for the USSR joining the war against Japan--they would gain territory. Stalin didn't sign that at the time, but the promises were laid out if he ever wanted to sign that. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Fast forward one more time to 1945. Germany and Italy were defeated and gutted. From the Axis, only Japan is left, and, as all accounts agree, they put up a mind-bogglingly stiff fight. In the east Pacific, you have the Americans... and I think the British, but I've never seen them discussed in any Atomic Bomb documents. But the USSR has already promised to join the war against Japan, and they're starting to move in that direction. It is understood that the USSR will not be conquered like the other three Axis powers. WWII will <i>not </i>end with the defeat of all of the belligerents. One of the instigators--an evil instigator--will be allowed to walk away from having started the war (and from committing war crimes) with no punishment. Nothing <i>inside </i>the USSR has changed since it was an Axis power.</p><p style="text-align: left;">And now, the United States needs to think about how the USSR will act <i>after </i>the war is over. By rights, they should have been invaded, defeated, and their leaders put on war crimes trials like Germany, but (first of all you can't invade Russia, as has been well-established, and) their status as an ally to the United States means instead that they will emerge victorious, respected, and <i>with more territory</i>. So the only thing the US can do is <i>limit </i>the victory that the USSR can claim. In order to do that, the need to keep the USSR from being able to claim to have helped the victory against Japan. That way, they will have less political clout and won't be able to demand as much. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://teachers.rossfordschools.org/cox/1988%20DBQ%20-%20Dropping%20The%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf" target="_blank">Winston Churchill</a> said this: </p><blockquote>On July 17 world-shaking news had arrived…. The atomic bomb is a reality….Moreover, we should not need the Russians. The end of the Japanese war no longer depended upon the pouring in of their armies for the final and perhaps protracted slaughter. We had no need to ask favours of them. A few days later I mentioned to Mr. Eden: “It is quite clear that the United States do not at the present time desire Russian participation in the war against Japan.”</blockquote>And <a href="http://teachers.rossfordschools.org/cox/1988%20DBQ%20-%20Dropping%20The%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf" target="_blank">Eisenhower</a> also wrote this (he wrote this in 1948 and never endorsed the Atomic Bomb; in <a href="https://fee.org/articles/ike-and-leahy-were-right-the-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-were-wrong/?fbclid=IwAR3AaYaIu22fTsXYRhQ5I97KXa96ajMEGAIA167LrzoFnXEKtefqBkylTEA" target="_blank">1963</a>, he said he had always opposed dropping the Atomic Bomb):<div><blockquote>Another item on which I ventured to advise President Truman involved the Soviet's intention to
enter the Japanese war. I told him that since reports indicated the imminence of Japan's collapse, I
deprecated the Red Army's engaging in that war. <b>I foresaw certain difficulties arising out of such
participation</b> and suggested that, at the very least, we ought not to put ourselves in the position of
requesting or begging for Soviet aid. It was my personal opinion that no power on earth could keep
the Red Army out of that war <b>unless victory came before they could get in</b>. [Emphasis mine]</blockquote></div><div>Then <a href="http://teachers.rossfordschools.org/cox/1988%20DBQ%20-%20Dropping%20The%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf" target="_blank">Leo Szilard</a>, an atomic scientist, added this:</div><div><blockquote>The question of whether the bomb should be used in the war against Japan came up for discussion.
Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to
win the war. He knew at that time, as the rest of the Government knew, that Japan was essentially
defeated and that we could win the war in another six months. At that time Mr. Byrnes was <b>much
concerned about the spreading of Russian influence in Europe</b>. [Emphasis mine]</blockquote></div><div><p style="text-align: left;">The point of all this is that part of the need to end the war soon <i>was </i>about protecting American lives during WWII, <i>and </i>protecting more lives <i>after WWII</i>. Part of limiting the war also meant limiting further war, <i>beyond </i>the war with Japan. If you want to be really imaginative, it could be argued that Japan was actually the first battleground of the Cold War. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I'm mentioning all of this because neither article, neither the pro-bomb article nor the anti-bomb article, ever mentioned that. They mentioned that the USSR was militarily involved, yes, but they did not mention Stalin's political involvement. The people surrounding the decision to drop the bomb were concerned with Soviet political involvement; the events from 1939-1945 explain <i>why </i>they wanted to limit Stalin's power. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Basically, the point was to entirely avoid <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/" target="_blank">this article from Foreign Policy</a>. It didn't work--the Soviets entered the war on August 8, which meant that <i>then </i>all the Allies could do was limit the USSR's role in the victory against Japan. They couldn't keep them out entirely, so they did the next best thing, which was do what they could to end the war before Stalin could claim too much success from that victory. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Mr. Mosley linked to <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0804/04091.html/(page)/2" target="_blank">an article</a> that clearly explained this, but I'm assuming he didn't mention it because he was concerned with constraints that I'm not, namely deadlines and word limits. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Japanese Were Ready to Surrender?</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Mosley's article claims that the Japanese were probably going to surrender, even without the bombing <i>or </i>an invasion. Now, this leaves a couple of questions: a) whether the Japanese were <i>planning </i>to surrender at that point, and b) whether or not Truman <i>knew </i>that they planned to. </p><p style="text-align: left;">One of the articles that Mosley links to (from <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/" target="_blank">Foreign Policy</a>) says this: </p><blockquote>Japan’s leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day. Unconditional surrender (what the Allies were demanding) was a bitter pill to swallow. </blockquote><p> In other words, no, the Japanese government was <i>not </i>ready to surrender before Hiroshima. (The Foreign Policy article goes on to say that Russia's intervention on August 8 was the real reason the Japanese <u>first </u>began seriously discussing surrender, because then the USSR proved they would no longer be the mediators.) That doesn't mean they <i>shouldn't </i>have surrendered, or could <i>possibly </i>have won the war, but it does indicate that they were willing to fight on. (And of <i>course </i>the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. If they hadn't... well, the USSR post-WWII was a pretty good indication of why you <i>don't </i>let murderous totalitarian regimes get away without consequences.) </p><p>A lot of the arguments that Mosley uses say that Japan was militarily defeated--which means the different investigations thought they <i>should </i>have surrendered. But the Japanese had a long history of <i>not </i>surrendering when others thought they should have, so just that doesn't mean they <i>did surrender</i>. </p><p>Furthermore, military reports didn't give an <a href="https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/atomic-bomb-hiroshima" target="_blank">indication of surrender</a>:</p><blockquote>Although an estimated 300,000 Japanese civilians had already died from starvation and bombing raids, Japan’s government showed no sign of capitulation. Instead, American intelligence intercepts revealed that by August 2, Japan had already deployed more than 560,000 soldiers and thousands of suicide planes and boats on the island of Kyushu to meet the expected American invasion of Japan.</blockquote><p>Several articles mention that Japanese military leaders were talking about surrendering, but how was the US military supposed to know that? And how does that compare with the very obvious deployment of soldiers, ships, and planes? </p><p>They lost any chance of ever winning a war far before the bombs, anyway; that was apparent after the Battle of Midway, in 1942. According to the <a href="https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/midway.html" target="_blank">Naval History and Heritage Command</a>:</p><blockquote> In a larger strategic sense, [after Midway] the Japanese offensive in the Pacific was derailed and their plans to advance on New Caledonia, Fiji, and Samoa postponed. The balance of sea power in the Pacific had begun to shift.</blockquote><p>Again, that was in 1942. Similarly, the <a href="https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/battle-midway" target="_blank">National WWII Museum</a> says:</p><blockquote>This critical US victory stopped the growth of Japan in the Pacific and put the United States in a position to begin shrinking the Japanese empire through a years-long series of island-hopping invasions and several even larger naval battles.</blockquote><p>Midway was the point the American fleet was able to start forcing the Japanese to retreat. Midway was the turning point. And furthermore, as per the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Midway_Atoll/preserving_the_past/The_Battle_of_Midway.html" target="_blank">US Fish and Wildlife Services</a> (who run a wildlife refuge and a memorial on Midway Atoll): </p><blockquote>The Japanese Navy never fully recovered and its expansion into the Pacific had been stopped. American naval power in the Pacific was restored. The American victory at Midway was the turning point of the Pacific campaign of World War II.</blockquote><p>A momentous, turning point battle that the Japanese navy never recovered from, and all of this, may I point out, merely six months and only two major battles after Pearl Harbor (Coral Sea was the major battle in between them).</p><p>If your measure of <i>when the Japanese were going to surrender</i> is at the point <i>when they stood no chance of winning the war</i>, then that began far before the bombs were dropped, and you can start to make the argument that some of the invasions prior to the bombs were also unnecessary. Was the invasion of Okinawa necessary? What about Iwo Jima? If Japan never recovered after <i>1942, </i>then were those two costly invasions really necessary? And yet, Japan <u>still didn't surrender</u>. The nation kept fighting on. It is clear they were willing to fight even when they stood no chance of winning. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Never Okay to Attack Civilians? </h3></div><div>Both articles address this point: the Atomic Bomb was an attack directly on civilians. Non-combatants. This, in the end, is Mosley's key point: </div><blockquote>Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: It’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children <a href="http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html">by the hundreds of thousands</a> cannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">First of all, military intelligence and inferences drawn by experience aren’t “fortune-telling”. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Secondly, I wouldn't describe Truman's circumstances as ambiguous, or at least, no more ambiguous than any wartime decision. Japan had defied all American understanding of how war worked. <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/11/28/national/military-forced-okinawa-mass-suicides/" target="_blank">Okinawan </a><i><a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/11/28/national/military-forced-okinawa-mass-suicides/" target="_blank">civilians</a> </i>committed suicide rather than surrender. That applied to <a href="https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2144267/worse-death-children-who-survived-battle-okinawa" target="_blank">Japanese children</a>, too. (In fact, Mosley talks about killing civilians by the "hundreds of thousands"--according to the <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/16/national/crime-legal/four-teens-arrested-vandalism-site-wartime-mass-suicide-okinawa/" target="_blank">Japanese Times, 94,000</a> civilians died during the invasion of Okinawa, the only Japanese home island to be invaded during the entire war. Invade two more small islands, and you'll have outstripped the death toll from Hiroshima, according to Mosley's source; the <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/bombings-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-1945">Atomic Heritage </a>says about 317,000 people died total in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including cancer deaths from years later, which is not much bigger than three Japanese islands the size of Okinawa. Although, the next island the Americans planned to invade was <a href="https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm" target="_blank">Kyushu</a>, which is a lot bigger than Okinawa.) And that was just on Okinawa--why should it have been any different on the main Japanese islands? Japan has <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Japan" target="_blank">430 inhabited islands</a>, by the way. (I know that's Wikipedia, so take it with the appropriate quantity of salt, but still.)</p><p>But on to the statement that it's wrong to attack civilians. A lot of people would point out that this particular sentence doesn't necessarily convey the full picture. Part of warfare includes logistics--the creation of weapons, the production of military supplies, and the transport of all of that. Attacking a weapons factory means that your enemies have fewer weapons and can't produce replacements; attacking the railways or transport ships means that those weapons can't be deployed effectively. That does mean that the war might be over faster, and that your own soldiers will have an easier battle, and hopefully fewer losses. Regrettably, civilians work in all those places. Now, you can say that it's still wrong to attack any civilians at all, but consider this: they are <i>actively contributing</i> to the war effort, not by fighting, but by producing. Targeting <i>those </i>things is different from going <a href="https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-warsaw-polish-uprising#civilians-during-the-uprising-2" target="_blank">house-to-house</a> and killing civilians just because they're there. One of them serves a clear and direct purpose towards ending the war; the other one is just cruelty. </p><p>Which brings me to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: admittedly, the only city that I can find any sort of information about weapons-building is Kokura, which was <i>supposed </i>to be the second city hit with a bomb (but got saved by bad weather), "<a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/bombings-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-1945" target="_blank">where Japan had one of its largest munitions plants</a>". I remember <i>hearing </i>that Hiroshima was a shipbuilding city (although I can't find that information anywhere on the internet--I heard it in Hiroshima, but I can't find it now). Of course, you also have to take into account the fact that the US bombings had already <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/" target="_blank">flattened all but eleven cities (counting Hiroshima) of more than 100,000 people</a> in Japan, and it was important to choose a city that hadn't been destroyed yet just so that the total damage would be completely apparent. Again, factories producing weapons are in cities--limiting that production would limit the war, invasion or no invasion. </p><p>The Washington Examiner had this to say about civilian deaths: </p><blockquote>In modern war against an evil regime attacks on civilians are regrettably necessary and indeed civilian deaths cannot be avoided. Civilian deaths are unfortunate, even tragic; but so are the deaths of those who have volunteered or have been conscripted into the military. </blockquote><div>Yes, and...</div><div><blockquote>Many, many more deaths, of Japanese as well as Americans, would have occurred if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.</blockquote></div><p style="text-align: left;">As demonstrated by the numbers from Okinawa, and...</p><p style="text-align: left;">...here's what I was going for: the four major Axis regimes (Italy, Germany, USSR, and Japan) were totalitarian regimes; a huge part of their power came from the fact that they had their civilian population so completely whipped up and dedicated to their cause. So why would anyone think the Japanese civilians during WWII would just sit back during an invasion? On Okinawa, some were given grenades and blew themselves up if American soldiers got too close (that wording is vague, but I <i>think </i>it's implied that they were supposed to use the guise of surrendering to blow themselves <i>and </i>the American soldiers up). </p><p style="text-align: left;">There is, of course, a massive gray area; and some regimes will claim that civilians are a threat and use that as an excuse to lock up political dissenters or other innocent people. But if you ever believe that it's acceptable to bomb production plants and other places where civilians are, Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't in that gray area.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Dependent on Philosophies?</h3><p style="text-align: left;">The <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bombing-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-was-the-right-thing-to-do" target="_blank">Washington Examiner article</a> that supports the bombing said this (emphasis mine):</p><blockquote>I have been to Hiroshima and have contemplated the horrifying impact of the atomic bomb there. Recently I’ve been reading Rana Mitter’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1846140102/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all">China’s War With Japan 1937-1945</a>, which describes how fiercely the Japanese fought and the <b>horrors they inflicted on literally millions of civilians</b>. </blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">I'm not going to go into the details of what the Japanese army did in China because absolutely none of it is appropriate for this blog; I'll just say that it was unquestionably horrifying. He goes on to say that "War is indeed hell", I presume implying that war is hell <i>because </i>it is sometimes necessary to attack places where civilians will be hurt. Which... pardon me, sir, but that passage does not help your argument much. Equating the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which you argue were <i>necessary evils</i>, to the acts committed in China (and the Philippines, and Singapore, and Korea...), which are universally denounced by anybody with a conscience, is <i>not </i>making the atomic bombings look good. Putting them all in the same category does not support your claim. </p><p style="text-align: left;">That was just what the paragraph sounded <i>most </i>like to me, but I suppose he could also be arguing that one side in a war is not obligated to strictly abide by rules that the other side has completely abandoned. If one side in a war deploys chemical weapons, the other side is no longer forbidden from retaliating in kind; after Germany bombed London, there was no reason the British couldn't bomb Berlin; and after the Japanese oppressed millions of civilians, the bomb raids on Japanese cities, which were directly designed to shorten the war, are not reprehensible. Ordinary American soldiers are not obliged to die so that civilians of a totalitarian aggressor state can live. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Now, that is clearly a philosophy, and I doubt you can prove that as <i>objective </i>moral truth, as anything that someone is <i>obligated </i>to believe. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Contrast that with:</p><blockquote>Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Now, in this case, Mr. Mosley is arguing that Americans are obligated to treat other nations as we wish to be treated. He doesn't say this, but the implication of this argument is that Americans must act this way even if a) we are the <i>reactors, </i>not the initial actors, and b) even if the other side has been treating their enemies horribly (Bataan Death March, anyone?). Whether or not the other side abides by rules of <i>honor</i> (according to the American understanding of honor--which the Japanese military, at the time of WWII, did not share), America must always take the high road. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Again, that is a philosophy, and not provable as an <i>objective </i>moral truth (or at least, it's not <i>objective </i>that the Golden Rule applies to wartime strategy, just like the "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to wartime strategy). </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Dependent on Hindsight?</h3><p style="text-align: left;">Both of these articles make arguments dependent on hindsight at certain points. In the case of Mr. Mosley, he cites a review that Truman commissioned, which said [emphasis mine]:</p><blockquote>Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the <b>surviving Japanese leaders involved</b>, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Mosley then describes this as "an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war and that plans for an invasion had been developed". But we need to remember that this survey was published in 1946, <i>after </i>the war was over. Did Truman <i>know all this </i>prior to Hiroshima? See my comments above about the army at Kyushu, because he definitely knew about <i>that</i>. And <i>especially</i>, did he know what the "surviving Japanese leaders involved" were talking about? Did he know what they were discussing? Notice how Mosley never gives any primary source of what the Japanese military was saying <i>before </i>the bomb was dropped--which is what Truman would have needed to base his policy upon. Was there some secret communication where Japan indicated they were willing to surrender? Did someone send a message offering to discuss terms of surrender? I don't know one way or the other. If there was, cite it, because <i>that </i>is what Truman would have needed to rely on--not whatever the defeated leaders would have told the commission in 1946. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Two other people we might hear from were the two people most directly in charge of the American forces in the Pacific in 1945: <a href="https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-people/m/macarthur-douglas.html" target="_blank">General Douglas MacArthur</a>, who was commander of the allies in the southwest Pacific and directly involved with the invasion of the Japanese-held Philippines, and <a href="https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/biographies-list/bios-n/nimitz-chester-w.html" target="_blank">Admiral Chester Nimitz</a>, who commanded the entire American fleet in the Pacific. Both of these men were directly involved in the Pacific while Eisenhower was still occupied with Europe (<a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2020/06/22/why-germany-first-origins-of-wwii-policy.html" target="_blank">Europe-first policy</a>), so let's see what they said. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Apparently, neither one of them publicly said anything about Japan's state of defeat. Sigh. The best I could find about MacArthur (during WWII, anyway) <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/macarthur-really-did-want-use-nuclear-weapons-win-korean-war-135847" target="_blank">was this</a>:</p><blockquote> One of his aides, Col. Sid Huff, wrote in his 1951 memoir My 15 Years With Gen. MacArthur, “I feel … that he didn’t like the idea of using the atomic bomb against Japan, although I never heard him express a direct opinion on that question either before or after Hiroshima.”</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">First off, I doubt anyone really <i>likes </i>the idea of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and secondly, I wouldn't call that a conclusive statement. So, Admiral Nimitz? What did he say? Again, not much, but I did <a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/chester-w-nimitz" target="_blank">find this</a>:</p><blockquote>Nimitz neither openly condemned nor supported the atomic bomb, but it is clear that he had certain misgivings about its use. His biographer E.B. Potter observed that the Admiral did in fact consider the atomic bomb somehow indecent. After his death, Nimitz’s wife Catherine also remembered her husband feeling badly about the dropping of the bomb "because he said we had Japan beaten already."</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">Assuming that his wife and biographer properly represented his views, <i>and </i>that he formed his views before the bombs were dropped, that statement means more than the retroactive study that is based on what people knew <i>after </i>the bomb. Of course, that's still a lot of assumptions. </p><p style="text-align: left;">My point is just that you can't make decisions based on retroactive studies. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Retroactive argument goes both ways, however. At one point, the Washington Examiner wrote this:</p><blockquote>I have long thought that the horror which contemplation of those bombings naturally inspires may have served to inoculate world leaders against using nuclear weapons again. Would nuclear tests or demonstration explosions have had the same effect if Harry Truman had decided not to order the bombs dropped on Japan? Maybe not. In which case the explosion of two (puny, by today’s standards) nuclear weapons that ended a war may have prevented the explosion of other nuclear weapons in the last 68 years.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">So? What does any of that have to do with Truman's decision? Again, <i>maybe </i>this is true retroactively, but if Truman was thinking this, evidence is required for this to be considered a vindication. I doubt Truman planned this (because we know what Truman thought about the bomb), but you don't get to use this as a defense of Truman's actions if he didn't know about this or consider this. </p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What Truman Said</h3><p style="text-align: left;">In August of 1945, Truman made a <a href="http://teachers.rossfordschools.org/cox/1988%20DBQ%20-%20Dropping%20The%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf" target="_blank">radio announcement</a>, in which he explains his reasons for using the Atomic Bomb:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb. ... Having found the bomb, we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without
warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American
prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned the pretense of obeying international laws of
warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands
and thousands of young Americans.</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">I can't tell if the lines about Pearl Harbor and Japanese treatment of American prisoners are about revenge or just about why he felt he no longer needed to feel guilty about the dead civilians. Either way, this was Truman's reasoning, and he <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/trumanatomicbomb.htm" target="_blank">never expressed regret</a> for the Atomic Bomb. </p><p style="text-align: left;">No one was happy about the bombs, and no one today is happy about it, but no one argues whether it was a good thing or not. They only argue over whether it was necessary or the least appalling option. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I've been to Japan twice, and I would encourage everyone who can go to Japan to go when you can. I've also been to Germany and Italy, and I would also encourage people to visit those places as well. They are most definitely not the totalitarian regimes of WWII anymore. And everyone on earth should be grateful that there have been no atomic attacks since WWII. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-38361021379695942052021-08-07T10:50:00.001-07:002021-08-07T10:50:00.190-07:00Book Review: The Captive Maiden<p>So this is the fourth book in Ms. Dickeron's series. I didn't read the second (explanation below), and although I did read and write a review for the third (<i>Fairest Beauty, </i>about Snow White), I decided I won't post it for a while. Short version, I thought the book was well-crafted, but I have some serious issues with some of the content, but it's about a rather sensitive topic (to me, at the moment) and I don't feel up to defending my views on that particular topic just now. The world doesn't need yet more people making statements and then not defending them properly, so I'll finish that review when I feel up to it. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/511-IzfACVL.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="327" height="316" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/511-IzfACVL.jpg" width="206" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Captive-Maiden-Fairy-Tale-Romance-ebook/dp/B00BW3EDWK" target="_blank">Source</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>Book two happened in England, and I skipped it because I wasn't particularly interested in reading a Melanie Dickerson book set in England. She mentions in a couple of her authors' notes about how she's visited Germany, and I want to read her stories set in Germany. I have other authors to read about medieval England for; with Germany, I'll stick with Ms. Dickerson. </p><p>Which brings me to <i>Captive Maiden</i>, which I liked significantly better than <i>Fairest Beauty</i>. </p><p>This is the Cinderella story. The leading lady's name is Gisela, and the main guy is Valten, the older brother of the hero in the last book. </p><p>There are a lot of things I liked about this book, and I'm not sure if there's a great way to organize my thoughts, so I'll go topical. </p><p>First off, the story: Gisela's father raises and sells horses for knights. She meets Valten when she's seven and he's fourteen, and he comes to her father's farm to buy a knight's horse, and he promises her to look after the horse that he buys. Great opening. But of course, Gisela's father dies, and her stepmother treats her horribly, forcing her to be a servant. (It was at this point that I suddenly realized how similar the Snow White and Cinderella stories are.) But ten years later, during a joust in Hagenheim, she and Valten accidentally cross paths again--along with another knight who despises Valten but thinks Gisela is lovely. Escapades and jousting ensue, followed by the classic fairy tale ball. </p><p>Here is where the story departs from the original fairy tale: the big ball happens halfway through the story. Gisela is kidnapped at the ball, and the rest of the story is about trying to save her. I sincerely appreciate this change--it just made the whole story more interesting. </p><p>Overall, this story made me roll my eyes at the recent live-action Cinderella movie even more, which I didn't think was possible. It looks to me like Ms. Dickerson watched the original Disney animated movie (the good one), and had a lot of the same concerns as other people--why didn't Cinderella just leave the manor? Why did Cinderella's father marry a horrible woman? Now, I <i>didn't </i>care about those details because the story is a fairy tale, and those sorts of things <a href="https://martastahlfeld.blogspot.com/2020/12/genre-crossovers.html" target="_blank">aren't really important for a fairy tale</a>, but if you're writing a novel about them, there's certainly space to address those questions--and, if you address them well, it doesn't detract from the story. (When it's done <i>badly</i>, that's different.) Ms. Dickerson addressed these concerns far more capably than the recent Disney travesty.</p><p>First off, Gisela's father <i>did </i>marry an awful woman, but he clued into the fact that she was an awful woman before he died. We know this because at one point, he told Gisela to hide his family's money and her mother's clothes where the stepmother couldn't find them--so he's protecting his daughter when he's still alive. Why did he marry her? Never mentioned, but the fact that he clued in works for me. </p><p>Secondly, in this one, Gisela is planning to leave one day, with that money her father made her hide. She hasn't left yet because of all her father's horses--living, sentient creatures, unlike the house that kept the live-action Cinderella there. But she knows that the stepmother is going to sell them all one day, and Gisela is determined to leave just as soon as that happens. She just happens to meet Valten again, and fall in love with him, before she can carry out her plan. There are also scenes where Gisela stands up to her and argues with her. </p><p>So with that out of the way, on to the characters. </p><p>First off, the main characters--they're both great, and they're an interesting contrast. Valten is a straight-talking, what-you-see-is-what-you-get, does-not-feel-comfortable-around-people type of person; in sharp contrast, Gisela hides her thoughts, fears, and discomfort, slides smoothly into pretty much all social situations, and has no problem meeting and talking with any new people (of any rank). Their romance makes sense because Gisela can soften Valten's edge and make him more at ease around people, while Valten can add force to back up Gisela's confidence. They bond over their shared love of horses, which feels like that fairy tale element of bringing in animals. I guess it's technically true their romance is extremely fast, a la a Disney animated fairy tale, but you don't really notice that, the way the story is written. It feels like more time passed. </p><p>The villains--there were three of them--were not of the same creepy caliber as Moncore. Most of the time, they felt more like the secondary villain in <i>Healer's Apprentice</i>. They weren't bad, and I <i>do </i>think the biggest villain (which is <i>not </i>the stepmother, surprise!) was competently written and genuinely complex. While I would have <i>liked </i>another Moncore villain, these ones aren't the worst. Maybe Ms. Dickerson was tired of writing Moncore-type villains and wanted to branch out. *shrug*</p><p>The way this story is structured, it definitely centers heavily around the two main characters, far more than the other two I read did. That's fine, because they really are my favorite main characters so far. It's just different from the other two. </p><p>This book <i>definitely </i>has more action than <i>Healer's Apprentice. </i>Valten is a jouster, so the centerpiece of the story isn't just a formal ball, but instead a massive multi-day jousting tournament with dancing and feasts attached. However, the action doesn't end after the jousts, as there are still fights, escapes, and chases. I really appreciated that, since I thought it was just more exciting overall. </p><p>My biggest... complaint? disagreement?... my biggest I-would-have-done-this-differently is this: after going into Gisela's past as I described above, Ms. Dickerson went even <i>more </i>into Gisela's family's story by bringing up her mother and her aunt's past, but I rather wish that time had been dedicated instead to focusing on Valten and his family. One very simple reason that this would have been applicable here is that it's really the first time we see all of Valten's family together for longer than a few chapters (minus Gabe, the male lead from the third book), so it would have made sense to see more of them. Another, more complex reason, is that this could have been used to develop Valten's character more. He's a quiet giant, but Gabe and his oldest sister Margharetta are outgoing and talkative--couldn't that have been a strong dynamic? Valten is able to <i>stay </i>the way he is because he trusts Gabe and Margharetta to do all his talking for them? (And wouldn't that have made the entire ending of Book 3, and the beginning of this one, all the more poignant and painful--and, therefore, the complete ending of this book even more rewarding and valuable?) A dynamic similar to this was <i>hinted </i>at a few times between Valten and Margharetta, but I would have liked to have seen it properly developed. And what about his youngest siblings? They all adore him, but there's never a single scene in the book where Valten interacts with them. There is a scene where Gisela <i>imagines </i>him interacting with them (and she imagines that his tension and awkwardness around new people doesn't extend to his family), but no scene where he actually does. To me, that felt like a missed opportunity. </p><p>A second issue I have with this story is what I think is supposed to be the solid conclusion. Valten and Gisela are in a healer's cottage (a recurring scene from the previous book), and there is a big discussion about their relationship. It felt unnecessary to me for a couple of reasons: first, this is the third time they've discussed getting married (well, second-and-a-half; I'm not sure the first time <i>really </i>counts), and second, both of them feel extremely out of character here. Valten does most of the (very eloquent) talking, and Gisela gets fretful and insecure when she doesn't really need to. But it's short. </p><p>A third overall issue that I'm going to mention is that this is the first book by Ms. Dickerson that I've read that doesn't feel as much like a fairy tale. The lack of the Moncore-like villain detracts from that aspect. Granted, barely any attention is paid to the world they're in--the focus is on the two characters, and most of the world is focused on the jousting--but if not for that, I'd be tempted to say this should be more like historical fiction. The only place where this really comes up is the mendicant character, about two thirds of the way through the book. Because this book doesn't feel like a fairy tale, I want to evaluate this character according to the times. For what it's worth, two mendicant orders, the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dominican-order" target="_blank">Dominicans </a>and the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Franciscans" target="_blank">Franciscans</a>, had already been founded by the early thirteenth century, and this story takes place in the early fifteenth century, so that's accurate enough, although we don't get told which order this character comes from. It aggravated me a little. There were also a few exceptional coincidences... </p><p>But in the end, this story was enjoyable because the main characters were very enjoyable. The changes in the Cinderella story made sense, and the action and fighting were a lot of fun. Overall, I enjoyed it, and I would certainly recommend this story! </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-53271346707535274302021-08-04T18:14:00.072-07:002021-08-04T18:14:00.184-07:00Awesome Things I Saw Written Around Shenyang, Part II<p> Over the course of three years, I had the delight of seeing strange English writings around Shenyang. For the first installment, see <a href="https://martastahlfeld.blogspot.com/2019/08/awesome-things-ive-seen-written-around.html" target="_blank">my post</a> from 2019; this will be the second installment, and there will also be a third (because I have that many pictures). </p><p>First off, there was this menu. I have no idea how to eat "Drawing the doctrine". </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HCQqZnhRlM/YQiZnwgYK-I/AAAAAAAAnEI/mjFmdM53aUY5BeQdc3WznCSSSA4hOHvKwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_8911.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HCQqZnhRlM/YQiZnwgYK-I/AAAAAAAAnEI/mjFmdM53aUY5BeQdc3WznCSSSA4hOHvKwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_8911.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Something else we noticed upon occasion is that any sort of Roman lettering was already interesting. It didn't matter if it didn't mean anything--just as long as it was Roman lettering, it was cool:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jD91aWY8VZg/YQiZn9o3QNI/AAAAAAAAnEI/IrigYkLaOUcNwU0vYkVxVwCopEu0x5B7wCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_8987.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jD91aWY8VZg/YQiZn9o3QNI/AAAAAAAAnEI/IrigYkLaOUcNwU0vYkVxVwCopEu0x5B7wCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_8987.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then there was this typo at the Great Wall at Shanhaiguan:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oOQ8qAY76No/YQiZn1pIeTI/AAAAAAAAnEI/30TEnDBDONUHOfUw_HNvEoY-3aFkCiAUACPcBGAsYHg/s1715/IMG_9895.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="964" data-original-width="1715" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oOQ8qAY76No/YQiZn1pIeTI/AAAAAAAAnEI/30TEnDBDONUHOfUw_HNvEoY-3aFkCiAUACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_9895.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one was at a Nike store in the Wanda Plaza about twenty minutes from my apartment. If you look closely, you can see that they switched two of the letters around (although I really can't blame them because they're similar letters): </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-82qE4IZfVQ8/YQiZn83dhTI/AAAAAAAAnEI/gngsRQ6kM1QnNGDAKhl0jPbkK2lDse7KgCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_1446.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-82qE4IZfVQ8/YQiZn83dhTI/AAAAAAAAnEI/gngsRQ6kM1QnNGDAKhl0jPbkK2lDse7KgCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_1446.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Like the Nike sign, the absolutely most hilarious stuff was usually the western-based brands' interpretations of... whatever. For about a month, McDonald's had something called a "sunshine latte", which was a basic latte with a piece of spun sugar colored to look like a sunny-side up egg--so it looked like you had an egg in your morning coffee. That's neither an American thing nor a Chinese thing (my students who had lived in China their entire lives were just as confused). But none of that held a candle to this:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QMYU8ZTQLm8/YQiZn_MVTAI/AAAAAAAAnEI/vaVQzxKvqsUOsgx8f-2SSr_FWAfAdTwYwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_1909.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QMYU8ZTQLm8/YQiZn_MVTAI/AAAAAAAAnEI/vaVQzxKvqsUOsgx8f-2SSr_FWAfAdTwYwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_1909.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now, this one actually isn't dumb. Cheese and egg yolk are two of the ingredients for custard--it's custard-flavored ice cream. But for some reason, that didn't make its way to the McDonald's in Shenyang!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then there was this lovely bookstore:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--53L1cDxChc/YQiZnyKIQEI/AAAAAAAAnEI/RZIvfeyBzzYgk6V00smUHgNOlNX2ANINwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_1913.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--53L1cDxChc/YQiZnyKIQEI/AAAAAAAAnEI/RZIvfeyBzzYgk6V00smUHgNOlNX2ANINwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_1913.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">First off, I don't think "propaganda" means what they think it means--I don't know of any English speakers who would put that word in a flourish like that. I'm guessing that was a mis-translation. Secondly, what is the "greener good" and what does it have to do with a book-coffee-shop?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one has me convinced that there's a troll on TaoBao selling t-shirts with dumb sayings on them. The Chinese people can't read them, but those who can read English get freaked out:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tt4czmNM5fg/YQiZn45dGzI/AAAAAAAAnEI/frRaI2-j-80Nm8hlRVj-hiiyG-OdFMaGwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_2233.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Tt4czmNM5fg/YQiZn45dGzI/AAAAAAAAnEI/frRaI2-j-80Nm8hlRVj-hiiyG-OdFMaGwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_2233.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'm willing to be there's a Chinese person selling t-shirts with this saying in Chinese on Amazon somewhere, too. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one makes perfect sense:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O4PjiLwWGVY/YQiZny0QYvI/AAAAAAAAnEI/Raqs4-zNqPo6DlwYgmcmkLLetYY4OXO2QCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_3678.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O4PjiLwWGVY/YQiZny0QYvI/AAAAAAAAnEI/Raqs4-zNqPo6DlwYgmcmkLLetYY4OXO2QCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_3678.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then there was this wine. First off, the label I peeled off came from Capetian, a French wine company that I don't <i>think </i>made this particular brand of wine. False advertising, methinks. But then, look at the label I <i>didn't </i>peel off...</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gBv8QH13Nks/YQiZn141U8I/AAAAAAAAnEI/Qnb3d5XkjWEvJdqHNbB4er9xnaBD7v9dACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_3785.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gBv8QH13Nks/YQiZn141U8I/AAAAAAAAnEI/Qnb3d5XkjWEvJdqHNbB4er9xnaBD7v9dACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_3785.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then there was this sign I saw around Christmas. The speech bubble on the far left says, "Wanda makes fun of life". I know what they were going for, but that's not what that means...</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SdCpyZTWp0M/YQiZn9Epd0I/AAAAAAAAnEI/xAi8SJ75lZMsSSc6b6IepPDx0X-mPvIcQCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_3792.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SdCpyZTWp0M/YQiZn9Epd0I/AAAAAAAAnEI/xAi8SJ75lZMsSSc6b6IepPDx0X-mPvIcQCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_3792.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one was on the floor at a store called "Happiness". The first glance will make you gasp, and I'm convinced they don't have a clue what it comes from. I can't imagine the local government would be happy, if they knew:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-__4GM1uhN4g/YQiZn9pWJHI/AAAAAAAAnEI/mpExHqcIiogNERONMArhHtLIkO0R7W_SACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4388.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-__4GM1uhN4g/YQiZn9pWJHI/AAAAAAAAnEI/mpExHqcIiogNERONMArhHtLIkO0R7W_SACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4388.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The other reason I'm confident they don't understand this is in this next picture. Look at what happens in the third line from the bottom, and then again in the fourth line from the top:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9BS8Yo2ySE4/YQiZn-qqRoI/AAAAAAAAnEI/M_vC8DRWGSkJpHgf0Op-MYu3ci5K4hcgACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4389.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9BS8Yo2ySE4/YQiZn-qqRoI/AAAAAAAAnEI/M_vC8DRWGSkJpHgf0Op-MYu3ci5K4hcgACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4389.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--az-V-D-AK4/YQiZn0VFXhI/AAAAAAAAnEI/0ZnQ0fpCxQcf2HAGsG0FR2aaaV5e1NtAgCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4393.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--az-V-D-AK4/YQiZn0VFXhI/AAAAAAAAnEI/0ZnQ0fpCxQcf2HAGsG0FR2aaaV5e1NtAgCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4393.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Right next to the base of that metal stand that's in the middle of the words.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one also has to be a lost-in-translation, but I have no idea how it could have happened. What do peaches have to do with charcoal? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q8TPUohXJlA/YQiZn9JlNlI/AAAAAAAAnEI/bUQCcMeo4dYo_dh7Ddvq0t92oSmk10mYACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4432.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q8TPUohXJlA/YQiZn9JlNlI/AAAAAAAAnEI/bUQCcMeo4dYo_dh7Ddvq0t92oSmk10mYACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4432.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one is a little hard to tell. The lit-up English words are fine, but look at what's behind them:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DpCHDeiJSjo/YQiZn9NYmZI/AAAAAAAAnEI/F--V0yDzsa0bGJbyQv_kJg0ESTDDSZVPwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4622.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DpCHDeiJSjo/YQiZn9NYmZI/AAAAAAAAnEI/F--V0yDzsa0bGJbyQv_kJg0ESTDDSZVPwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4622.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one... took me a second, but if you think about it, it makes perfect sense:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tr63irGnwu4/YQiZnyIqi4I/AAAAAAAAnEI/3s4LLyZjBnEElA5qa3rYxo3QBKiyhOnyQCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4678.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tr63irGnwu4/YQiZnyIqi4I/AAAAAAAAnEI/3s4LLyZjBnEElA5qa3rYxo3QBKiyhOnyQCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4678.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The next one comes from the Kunming Zoo. My friend who grew up in Kunming told me that, while the animals are great, the Chinglish signs are just as much of an attraction. Unfortunately, they appear to have hired an English editor since my friend was a kid, but there was still this great sign:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hrrRRZZgBkY/YQiZnwT3kYI/AAAAAAAAnEI/tltFSncgLeAvYV-MGbzjqSVzYGuQdeMVQCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4739.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hrrRRZZgBkY/YQiZnwT3kYI/AAAAAAAAnEI/tltFSncgLeAvYV-MGbzjqSVzYGuQdeMVQCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4739.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next picture is HILARIOUS because of the story behind it. My friend is a great bat lover so when I saw the bat on the car, I had to stop and take a picture for her. </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sEkL44TTcE0/YQiZn3tYUSI/AAAAAAAAnEI/2kQtzZBOfsg7mylJgTmU2ceBR-zRgiAxACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_5027.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sEkL44TTcE0/YQiZn3tYUSI/AAAAAAAAnEI/2kQtzZBOfsg7mylJgTmU2ceBR-zRgiAxACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_5027.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As I was adding that picture into a message, I suddenly read the car brand for the first time. I'd seen that car brand around before, but I'd never noticed the brand itself is misspelled! </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I now can't help calling that car brand "Leopa-ard".</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This next one must be a straight translation of two Chinese words into the English words, and it also makes sense:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-URSZQEfzZ9E/YQiZn-wI0mI/AAAAAAAAnEI/TlQY4Y5gPZANq44vmfTfa_kgiZF1WCfMgCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_5500.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-URSZQEfzZ9E/YQiZn-wI0mI/AAAAAAAAnEI/TlQY4Y5gPZANq44vmfTfa_kgiZF1WCfMgCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_5500.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Then this next one (which I can't figure out how to rotate). Underneath the gold swirls, it calls this tissue paper, "Flexible comfortable life paper". As hard as I laughed at that, I can't argue! </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3-QqOU8LZUA/YQiZn4E0rqI/AAAAAAAAnEI/r6pWNDBP1SUXpynxIs8WcmhmGI-QpkVbQCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_5995.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3-QqOU8LZUA/YQiZn4E0rqI/AAAAAAAAnEI/r6pWNDBP1SUXpynxIs8WcmhmGI-QpkVbQCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_5995.JPG" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">And I have no explanation for this next one:</div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RA7Dj453_Pg/YQiZn3bV4ZI/AAAAAAAAnEI/tSZa2URFbEEMPatI80AaIQs2nbnKWSAJwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_2322.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RA7Dj453_Pg/YQiZn3bV4ZI/AAAAAAAAnEI/tSZa2URFbEEMPatI80AaIQs2nbnKWSAJwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_2322.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-31782870978628620762021-08-02T18:08:00.001-07:002021-08-08T23:59:01.268-07:00This is Not Allegory <p> A friend of mine sent me <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1771929086360393" target="_blank">this video</a> about three years ago, and it's bothered me ever since, but not in a nice, orderly way. My problems with it were all in a jumble, and I couldn't straighten them out. I tried to supplement my understanding of it with extra research, but then I looked at the last time I published a blog post, looked at my backlog of other posts, and decided, "Nah, I'm just gonna get this over with, because I don't think I'm going to need much more than a play-by-play critique". </p><p>With all that in mind, this is all stuff that I've heard from who-knows-where. If I specifically looked anything up for this post, I've linked it; if it's just something I took from my memory from the fifteen+ years I've spent reading Tolkien, then it's not linked, <i>and therefore </i>may be wrong and <i>definitely </i>is not authoritative. </p><p>The video, in case you haven't clicked on the link, is a Facebook video that shows a pretend text conversation between Lewis and Tolkien on the subject of allegory. Tolkien famously said he "cordially disliked allegory", but this fictitious CS Lewis challenges that with some examples from <i>Lord of the Rings </i>and the <i>Silmarillion</i>. I'll put in some screenshots so you can see what I'm critiquing. </p><p>First off, there was this:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FvXrVCpOS7M/YQh9puNrQFI/AAAAAAAAnDo/8Fm_bz7wjqUm8Ddjk1Hq5OxiaMH3h5KawCLcBGAsYHQ/s618/1.%2BChildren%2BSubtle.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="445" data-original-width="618" height="230" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FvXrVCpOS7M/YQh9puNrQFI/AAAAAAAAnDo/8Fm_bz7wjqUm8Ddjk1Hq5OxiaMH3h5KawCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/1.%2BChildren%2BSubtle.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Kudos, my good friends, for pointing out that children are perfectly capable of reading subtle books. Or, if they don't get them right away, they will get them when they grow older and learn about those issues in life. (Folgrim's PTSD in <i>Legend of Luke</i>, anyone? Okay, not that <i>specific </i>manifestation of PTSD, but you get what I mean.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Anyway, then we come to these two messages, which include the following terms: allegory, symbolism, influence, and parallels. </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bynaYnnQVAI/YQh9sqFvN1I/AAAAAAAAnD0/IOxnXjdIP9k357OkzIwCh5avtHPXZvgIQCLcBGAsYHQ/s617/2.%2BAllegory%2Band%2BSymbolism.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="617" height="231" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bynaYnnQVAI/YQh9sqFvN1I/AAAAAAAAnD0/IOxnXjdIP9k357OkzIwCh5avtHPXZvgIQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/2.%2BAllegory%2Band%2BSymbolism.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gDOatd-zu-Q/YQh9shtQMuI/AAAAAAAAnDw/dMjPgnYeL2QDRDmgoGdhOUIUPiWp-rlgwCLcBGAsYHQ/s618/3.%2BInfluenced%2BBy%2Band%2BParallels.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="618" height="229" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gDOatd-zu-Q/YQh9shtQMuI/AAAAAAAAnDw/dMjPgnYeL2QDRDmgoGdhOUIUPiWp-rlgwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/3.%2BInfluenced%2BBy%2Band%2BParallels.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Those words--<i>allegory</i>, <i>influence, symbolism, and parallels--</i>are not the same things. They are not (necessarily) interchangeable. Tolkien said he disliked <i>allegory</i>, but not <i>symbolism</i>, <i>parallels</i>, and definitely not <i>influence</i>. At least once (I think in the prelude to the first reprinting of the <i>Lord of the Rings?</i>) he openly said that his Catholic beliefs <i>influenced </i>his writing, at first subconsciously and later consciously. In other words, his beliefs were <i>so strong </i>for him that he couldn't possibly create a world without them. His beliefs influenced how he imagined a world would work. But that doesn't make it an <i>allegory</i> for those beliefs. (Granted, <i>symbolism </i>and <i>parallels </i>are very similar to allegory, but I'm not going to delve into those.) </p><p style="clear: both;">Tolkien defined an allegory as a story where the author gave the reader no room for interpretation as to what things mean. The story means what it means, and it cannot be interpreted. The best example I can find of this conflict is Liam Neeson's performance of Aslan. Under the character's description on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_Prince_Caspian#Cast" target="_blank">Wikipedia </a>(for <i>Prince Caspian</i>), it says that Neeson viewed Aslan as "the spirit of the planet—this living, breathing planet". Nope--Neeson is wrong, because Aslan <i>is </i>Jesus and allegory (in Tolkien's view) removes interpretation and applicability. (All of that, plus the earlier quote about disliking allegory, is in this video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYJKDbY7tpc">Tolkien and Allegory - YouTube</a>). </p><p style="clear: both;">Now, when something <i>influences </i>another story, that doesn't remove the reader's interpretation. It just means that someone heard Story A, liked <i>parts </i>of it, and worked it into their story. But that does <i>not </i>remove the reader's ability to draw an application that has nothing to do with Story A. </p><p style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Now, let's move on. This next section just requires a basic knowledge of Catholicism, history, and the stories themselves.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3oHNOhp84eo/YQh9sqjotwI/AAAAAAAAnDs/c9H6m9ILyKc-S6eDc6_cvstCcXp9aeR6ACLcBGAsYHQ/s518/4.%2BDifferent%2BExamples.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="445" data-original-width="518" height="275" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3oHNOhp84eo/YQh9sqjotwI/AAAAAAAAnDs/c9H6m9ILyKc-S6eDc6_cvstCcXp9aeR6ACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/4.%2BDifferent%2BExamples.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'm going to break each one of these down by sections. </div><h4 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">WWI and War of the Ring</h4><div>Exactly what did these two have in common, in any <i>meaningful </i>sense, aside from the fact that they're a war? Where are the trenches in the War of the Ring? Where was the Ring in WWI? They have nothing in common from a military, cultural, or political perspective. </div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Gandalf, Resurrection, and Jesus</h4><p style="text-align: left;">This one looks good on the surface, but it's pretty obviously not true. First off, if the only thing that Gandalf has is that he comes back to life, then how do we know it's <i>Jesus? </i>Why not Lazarus? Or the widow of Nain's son? Or every believer after Jesus returns? </p><p style="text-align: left;">Returning to Tolkien's point about allegory, there's not nearly enough similarity to <i>force </i>this to be Jesus. There's nothing about dying for sins, which is rather crucial. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Also, the idea of Gandalf being Christ... well, Gandalf resurrected and became Gandalf the White <i>because he filled Saruman's void... </i>so, does that mean that Jesus resurrected because there was some other god whose void he had to fill because the other god turned evil? That's some pretty serious heresy that Tolkien would never have disseminated. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Aragorn and Frodo</h4><p style="text-align: left;">They way they say this, it sounds like the parallels should be <i>obvious</i>, but I have no idea what these allegorical elements could possibly be. Aside from the generic insert-yourself into the heroes, like most fantasy stories have, I'm stumped. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Aragorn's assumption of the kingship is terribly similar to the four Pevensie children becoming the kings and queens of Narnia, and I've heard in places that it's influenced by Tolkien's study of the Anglo-Saxons' beliefs (he studied Anglo-Saxon culture), but that hardly qualifies for what the text message was talking about. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Dwarves and Jews</h4><p style="text-align: left;">The idea here being that the Jews had access to the promise of the Messiah before other people did, but... that's <i>so </i>not what the story of the Dwarves is. <br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">The Dwarves were created by Aule and <i>not </i>by Eru (the god-like character of Middle-Earth). Aule got impatient for the Elves to be created and really wanted someone to teach, so he jumped the gun, circumvented Eru's orders, and tried creating his own species. When Eru caught Aule creating a separate race, he punished Aule by putting the Dwarves to sleep and not allowing them to wake up until after the Elves woke up. That's pretty much the opposite of the story of the Jews. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Not that it's impossible that the story of the Jews <i>influenced </i>the story of the Dwarves. I... don't know <i>how </i>it would have, because they're terribly different stories <i>and </i>because Tolkien also took inspiration from Finnish, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon mythology and the Dwarves' story might have come from them (although I don't know enough about those stories to give any examples). </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7w1XfzfiLVY/YQh9tH4vnUI/AAAAAAAAnD4/ydBGg-ENC3QT0JF3Y1FIZ6XUn3jxofn5gCLcBGAsYHQ/s446/5.%2BEnvironmentalism.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="446" height="317" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7w1XfzfiLVY/YQh9tH4vnUI/AAAAAAAAnD4/ydBGg-ENC3QT0JF3Y1FIZ6XUn3jxofn5gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/5.%2BEnvironmentalism.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><h4 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Environmentalism and Industrialization</h4><p style="text-align: left;">This is the best point they make, and the one that can't be explained with just a basic knowledge of <i>what Tolkien knew about </i>industrialization and environmentalism. I will say that to me it would be a terrible, horrible allegory for industrialization, for two reasons: first, industrialization has upsides, such as medicine, that are only briefly explored in the books (the Uruk-hai cure Merry and Pippin when they've been captured), and Tolkien's alternatives--magical aethelas plants that can only be used by the king--don't have a good or effective comparison in the real world; and secondly, the "fight against industry" is an external fight (one kingdom vs. another kingdom), while the arguments about industrialization are extremely internal fights (struggles that each country needs to sort out inside its own borders), and making it a nation-vs-nation fight just takes away all the serious nuances that are <i>integral </i>to that debate. The thing is that I don't know for sure that Tolkien cared about all of that. I can't imagine he <i>didn't</i>, but I don't <i>know </i>he did. </p><p style="text-align: left;">What I will also say is that this still doesn't fit Tolkien's definition of allegory because there are alternative interpretations. When Isengard turns into a war citadel, not only do the forests disappear, but the area begins to look more like <i>Mordor</i>, and to me, <i>that </i>is the key point--its alliance to Mordor makes it look more like Mordor. I read somewhere that Tolkien believed that, in a <i>story</i> a place or thing made with good <i>intentions </i>couldn't possibly have an ugly appearance (<a href="https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/english_facpub/329/" target="_blank">page 62</a> in the version I used for my English thesis; I'm not sure if that's the same version). Isengard was originally beautiful because the intention of the builders was for good; however, as Saruman's intention took over the building, that good appearance faded along with the intention. </p><p style="text-align: left;">All things considered, I realize this is a sloppy and paper-thin post, but that "Gandalf=Jesus" comment made me not care that much. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-66466231344017481012021-06-24T06:55:00.003-07:002021-06-24T08:22:32.794-07:00I’m Back From China!<p>So after three years of teaching in China, I decided it was time to return to the US and start working here. I couldn’t make it back to America last summer (and not for lack of trying), but I’m home now, and I’m relishing being back in Washington state. </p><p>So I thought, to celebrate getting home, I’d do a quick year-in-review of my three years there. </p><h4 style="text-align: left;">2018-2019</h4><div>My first year teaching, my second time living abroad (I’m counting Ireland in 2015), and my first time teaching elementary. This year was difficult for a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason, I think, is that I was doing everything for the first time. I had to learn a lot of stuff on the job, and I spent a lot of time doing stuff that would take an experienced teacher would only take minutes to do. I didn’t really have a social life because I usually went home and just worked until I went to bed, because it took me that long to do a lot of stuff. </div><div><br /></div><div>There was one major exception to that—every Friday night, I would meet up with two of my best friends, also teachers at the school, and sometimes more than them, and go to a brewhouse near the apartment. We would hang out there for hours. Sometimes we talked about serious issues, like philosophy and history, and sometimes we just laughed at YouTube videos. It was so great!</div><div><br /></div><div>This was also the year I did a lot of exploring. I had four vacations, which included trips to Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea, and a city called Lianyungang in China. Of those vacations, all of them were with new friends. </div><div><br /></div><div>That’s the thing I realized about my first year in China—I made a lot of friends. </div><h4 style="text-align: left;">2019-2020</h4><div>This year. This dreaded year. The year of lockdowns, online schooling, and ruined plans. The year I couldn’t go back to America. The year of fear, confusion, and loneliness. </div><div><br /></div><div>It was my favorite year there. </div><div><br /></div><div>First off, I was back to teaching high school, and I loved it. Not just because I love history—I do—but because I got to move up to teaching on the third floor, where we were all good friends. I actually looked forward to our meetings, because we were such good friends. At any spare moment, we could expect one of the other teachers to drop in for a friendly greeting. The third forgo was lively, warm, and bright. </div><div><br /></div><div>That didn’t change when online schooling started, because we all lived pretty close to each other. We still met up for parties and social events, and with online schooling, we weren’t bound to the daily schedule, so we could have social events in the middle of the day. </div><div><br /></div><div>Before everything went to pieces, I did manage to go on two fun vacations. The first one was back to Japan, where Haleigh met me (yay!), and the second one was to Singapore, where Mom and Dad met me (yay!), and then to Malaysia, where I got incredible news—my foot injury could be repaired without needing to replace the joint! I was seriously considering going back to Malaysia for surgery over Chinese New Year, but virus. But that’s honestly all right—just getting that news was spectacular. </div><h4 style="text-align: left;">2020-2021</h4><div>This year started off really rough. First off, at the end of the 2020 school year, a <i>lot </i>of teachers were gone. That third floor that was so lively and great the previous year turned into a ghost town. Only two of us from the previous year stayed over. This was a huge blow, because my friends were the main reason I was willing to stay for a third year. For most of them to suddenly be gone was very rough. Furthermore, due to a variety of factors, I ended up only having a two-week break for summer, and then going back to a school that couldn't bring in new teachers to replace the old teachers--China's border is pretty closed, and most teachers can't enter. So yeah, not an auspicious start.</div><div><br /></div><div>Having said all of that, now that I’m thinking about it, none of that was the reason I left. Nothing in China was the reason I left. The <i>reason </i>I left was that I needed to go to my family—my brother’s getting married, Mom and Dad will be retiring soon, and my childhood friends are still here. I had a reason for coming back, but not really a reason for leaving. </div><div><br /></div><div>China isn’t a bad place to be. Granted, I have a story about the Chinese government being... fill in the blank... but the Chinese people were, with the odd exception, wonderful. Working in an expat community is a lot of fun, too--there's a wide range of people who are drawn to being expats, but we had a tight and supportive community. The people are wonderful, friendly, and adventurous. And the students--I cannot say enough good things about the students there. </div><div><br /></div><div>(To my former students who are reading this: don't let that go to your head.)</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mdLDVt46kKg/YNSjMtWcK4I/AAAAAAAAlPI/NoOCsnmzFpEI95uoY9XU0J44XrIbHWtIACPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_6254.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mdLDVt46kKg/YNSjMtWcK4I/AAAAAAAAlPI/NoOCsnmzFpEI95uoY9XU0J44XrIbHWtIACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_6254.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-28847336219138315772021-05-03T03:21:00.004-07:002021-05-20T21:05:50.166-07:00My Favorite Tolkien CharactersI can already hear two questions regarding the title. First--<i>Who cares what Marta's favorite Tolkien characters are? She hasn't even read </i>Book of Lost Tales <i>yet!</i> And second, <i>How on earth can you only choose ten from all of Tolkien's mythology?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
It's true, I haven't read the <i>Book of Lost Tales</i>, but I'll get on that eventually. I have, however, read <i>Silmarillion </i>multiple times, the trilogy twice, and <i>Hobbit </i>twice. So I know... most of the Middle-Earth characters? At least a good portion of them.<br />
<br />
As for why you should care about my opinion, you don't have to, of course, but as I've said before, I write about what I want to write about, whether other people care or not. So, without further ado...<br />
<br />
<h4>
10.</h4>
Actually, I have no idea.<br />
<h4>
9. </h4>
Umm...<br />
<h4>
8.</h4>
As it turns out, it's really hard to limit Tolkien's characters to just ten.<br />
<h4>
7. </h4>
Maybe... wait, no...<br />
<h4>
6. </h4>
I'll just do favorite five, I guess!<br />
<br />
<h4>
5. Luthien</h4>
I can already hear one of my best friends cringing that I didn't put Luthien as my favorite, but that isn't a complaint about her. That's the thing--with these characters, I don't have much to complain about. The question is just which one charmed me more.<br />
<br />
Anyway, with Luthien--this character could have been <i>so </i>easy to be a boring, perfect type. She's the most beautiful woman who ever lived, plus she makes music so lovely it changes the seasons, and then she's the daughter of a Maia spirit with a lot of her own magic. She could be too perfect to be interesting or even likable. However, I think Tolkien did an excellent job of <i>not </i>making her that way, by two simple feats: first, he never showed her fighting except against creatures <i>more </i>powerful than her, and second, he always made sure her victories were <i>qualified </i>victories. Take, for example, her fight against Sauron: when Sauron himself appeared, and she stood face-to-face against the great monster of the trilogy, she actually fainted, <i>but </i>her magic cloak caught Sauron by surprise, and she was able to recover herself just enough to chase Sauron away. It makes sense that she would be overwhelmed--Sauron was, after all, a Maia who was even more powerful than her mother--but through her own determination, quick wits, and a bit of luck, she was able to score a... qualified victory. She didn't vanquish Sauron completely (which would have been unbelievable), but she was able to get <i>just enough </i>of a victory to win the day.<br />
<br />
Add to that, in the little bit we see of her, she's loyal, kind, and empathetic. She never thinks it's beneath her dignity to befriend anyone, including Beren and the dog Huan. She is also merciful--she asks Beren to spare the lives of elves who tried to kill her. Add to that she is resilient; it takes a lot for her to lose hope. And finally, she is clearly courageous--not just for facing Sauron, but also for countermanding her father's orders about Beren and bringing him in front of Thingol as a guest and not as a prisoner. I like Luthien dearly.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://th.bing.com/th/id/Re0c81d9763a1aee8fb43062200c748ea?rik=Mkh2YSS552R49Q&pid=ImgRaw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/Re0c81d9763a1aee8fb43062200c748ea?rik=Mkh2YSS552R49Q&pid=ImgRaw" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br />
<h4>
4. Sam</h4>
What? Sam isn't #1?<br />
<br />
I don't think I need to elaborate on why Sam is on this list. There is no truer line in the entire movie trilogy than, "Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without Sam." Also, Sam has the spirit of the trilogy's story: "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's <i>worth </i>fighting for."<br />
<br />
Everything that everyone else loves about Sam, I love too. Loyalty, courage, hope--enough said.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://wallpapercave.com/wp/wp8026484.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="539" height="320" src="https://wallpapercave.com/wp/wp8026484.jpg" width="216" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My absolute favorite thing about this shot is that it shows both Sting (the sword) and Sam's pack with the cooking supplies and the "comforts of home". It shows the two sides of Sam's personality--both of which required courage. <a href="https://wallpapercave.com/samwise-gamgee-wallpapers" target="_blank">Source</a>. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br />
<h4>
3. Boromir</h4>
Remember that these are <i>my </i>favorite characters--not who I necessarily think are, objectively, the <i>best </i>characters. I have a peculiar quirk about my nature: if I a) expect to hate something and then like it (a la <i>Frozen</i>), or b) used to hate something and now like it, then I like it all the more.<br />
<br />
I used to hate Boromir. Truly, <i>hate </i>Boromir. I was furious with him for trying to take the Ring from Frodo, and then for everything in between. I found him repulsive, irritating, abrasive, and just insufferable. The fact that Aragorn was my favorite member of the Fellowship, and he kept fighting with Aragron, added fuel to that loathing.<br />
<br />
Then I grew up, started studying history a bit, and I realized that Boromir was far more complicated than I had first understood.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://th.bing.com/th/id/Ref3f550983da6fd06d98536bbb0cb260?rik=EBikMoWGKLsnaw&riu=http%3a%2f%2f1.bp.blogspot.com%2f-ITiETenGGkw%2fUJFz_RQDsoI%2fAAAAAAAAADc%2f7b5r5Gyob-0%2fs1600%2fThe%2bHorn%2bof%2bBoromir.jpg&ehk=iimyzIDPoqMAJ%2fG0L0ElfqdQyvG6xbxBqYQOHE63I5k%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="800" height="175" src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/Ref3f550983da6fd06d98536bbb0cb260?rik=EBikMoWGKLsnaw&riu=http%3a%2f%2f1.bp.blogspot.com%2f-ITiETenGGkw%2fUJFz_RQDsoI%2fAAAAAAAAADc%2f7b5r5Gyob-0%2fs1600%2fThe%2bHorn%2bof%2bBoromir.jpg&ehk=iimyzIDPoqMAJ%2fG0L0ElfqdQyvG6xbxBqYQOHE63I5k%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://my1sweetangel.blogspot.com/2012/10/my-favorite-lotr-artist.html" target="_blank">Source</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><h4>2. King Thingol</h4>
This is the king of Menegroth in <i>Silmarillion</i>, and although he barely has any speaking lines, he's a truly awesome character full to the brim of contradictions.<br />
<br />
And--dare I say it--he's hilarious.<br />
<br />
Thingol is described as "ruling like a Maia", because of the power lent to him by his wife Melian (who <i>is </i>a Maia). That is never said about any of the other elves--not even the ones who live with the other Maia. Furthermore, the description of Menegroth is thoroughly impressive--beautiful, powerful, filled with riches, most beautiful home outside of Valinor, etc. All of these are things that, for normal Tolkien characters, would lead to corruption (see Boromir and Thorin). Even one of the Noldor kings... whose name escapes me just now... he was the king of Gondolin... Turgon! King Turgon is described as ignoring the advice of one of the Valar because he had grown proud and now trusted in his city. Thingol, on the other hand, doesn't display any of that. He is still a tragic character (it <i>is </i>the <i>Silmarillion</i>, after all), but when he is corrupted, it isn't because of his own riches or power, but because of the curse that Morgarath put on the Silmarils. In other words, he is surrounded by power and temptations, but he isn't corrupted by it. How very... hobbitish of him.<br />
<br />
That's the thing--although he is a very powerful person, the vibes I get from him aren't pompous. It is true that he mocks Beren's lineage, but I think that has more to do with his outrage that Beren thinks he's good enough for Luthien than anything else. And it must be remembered that, in Tolkien's world, the divisions between Elves and Men aren't exactly arbitrary. (It's not a Marxist class distinction--it's a division that doesn't really have a parallel in the real world. The distinction is based off of the fact that Elves were literally created first, and created to have a place in the Undying Lands, while Men were not created to have that place. It's a separation that is all too literal, which the movies did a decent job portraying.) Anyway, although Thingol clearly has rank and pomp and power, and although he definitely bars certain Elves from approaching him, he never feels as haughty as someone like Denethor. He seems willing to listen, to explore, to learn, and to be real.<br />
<br />
Possibly the funniest example of this, at least to me, is the way he reacts to two different humans: Beren and then Turin.<br />
<br />
With Beren, he is furious, makes all kinds of comments about how low Beren is compared to him, and then eventually arranges for Beren to die (because Beren wanted to marry Thingol's daughter).<br />
<br />
But then, less than a decade later (which is <i>not </i>that long if you're about 2,000 years old), when Turin comes stumbling into Menegroth, Thingol actually gets up off his throne, picks Turin up, puts him on his lap, and announces he'll foster Turin until Turin becomes an adult. To quote the book, <div><br /></div><div>I especially love how nobody comments on this. No one says something to the effect of, "Um, excuse me, just a few years ago you were singing a very different tune." (This isn't a random change, either--it is the effect of accepting Beren's love for Luthien.)<br />
<br />
I have also read <i>Children of Hurin</i> (which I do <i>not </i>recommend until you've read <i>Silmarillion--</i>it is unquestionably Tolkien's darkest story, and one of the single darkest things I have ever read), and there is a fascinating exchange between the king and a very shy Elven lady that goes something like this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Shy Lady: I was sitting in a tree...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thingol: [with a smile] Many of my subjects sit in trees, but they do not feel the need to tell me about it. </blockquote>
That line was said by the Elven king who "ruled as a great Maia!"<br />
<br />
This is all to say that Thingol just feels a bit like a classic hobbit. He cares dearly for his family and his home, and disdains the things that the rest of the characters are all after (at least at first). He's very powerful, but he never comes across as untouchable, unreachable, or arrogant (again, except at the very end, and as a result of a curse). I find him endearing and entertaining.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.QkhbqDTJmynGp7hnorZuagHaJ_?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="639" data-original-width="474" height="320" src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.QkhbqDTJmynGp7hnorZuagHaJ_?pid=ImgDet&rs=1" width="237" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=QkhbqDTJ&id=78CD35F285987991C1CDB9BEB306728ABB496DB9&thid=OIP.QkhbqDTJmynGp7hnorZuagHaJ_&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR42485ba834c99b29c6a7b867a2b66e6a%3frik%3duW1Ju4pyBrO%252buQ%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%252fseigneur-des-anneaux%252fimages%252f7%252f72%252fThingol%2525C2%2525B2.jpg%252frevision%252flatest%253fcb%253d20150204201721%2526path-prefix%253dfr%26ehk%3dlWAh1y0CGYcEN2jVl9XT0wvX%252bM3y6KlI9dlTl6mK0cs%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw&exph=1038&expw=769&q=thingol&simid=608053432309541848&ck=09D6271FF20B81AE27306DED80199445&selectedIndex=1&FORM=IRPRST">Source</a>. Also, if I never see another anime drawing of Thingol and Melian, it will be too soon. </td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>
<h4>
1. Bilbo </h4>
<div>
Oh, dear Bilbo. Funny, relatable, admirable, spunky, sarcastic, endearing, adventurous, wonderful Bilbo! </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not sure what I love best about Bilbo. His wit? His spunk? The fact that he never stops being out of place on his adventure? The fact that he is a writer? The fact that he is constantly surrounded by powerful objects (the Ring and the Arkenstone) and is rarely controlled by any of them? (He was using the Arkenstone like a pillow!) The fact that his last line in the movie was, "I think I'm quite ready for another adventure!"?</div><div><br /></div><div>The fact that, although he clearly has an adventurous streak, he is <i>also </i>able to settle down in the Shire for years and years? He's able to be both the adventurer and the person who took in and provided a good home for his relative? </div><div><br /></div><div>I think this is probably the biggest thing about Bilbo that fascinates me: even though his story was so similar to Frodo's, it was also the polar opposite. </div><div><br /></div><div>Think about it: both of them go on a quest centered around a powerful object, both of them lose dear friends (Boromir and Thorin, who are sort of the same character in a way...), and both of them return to the Shire to live there for a number of years, completely changed. For Frodo, that was part of the tragedy: he loved the Shire and wanted nothing more than to protect it and go home to it, but he never really could. Bilbo also went back, completely changed, but for his story, that was his success. He came back different, an oddball, not quite as respectable, but <i>happy </i>and <i>loved</i>. For me, that's a sense of optimism and hope that just touches my heart. </div><div><br /></div><div>Nor was this story written by some ivory-tower coffee-shop artist, either. J.R.R. Tolkien, it must be remembered, had a story with horrors similar to Frodo's: Tolkien fought at the <a href="https://www.tolkiensociety.org/author/biography/" target="_blank">Battle of the Somme</a>, a battle in which the first <i>day </i>had <a href="https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/key-facts-about-the-battle-of-the-somme" target="_blank">57,000</a> deaths on the British side alone (that's more than the US lost in the <i>entire </i><a href="https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf" target="_blank">Korean War</a>), and where he lost all but one of his close friends. (The entire campaign of the Somme had 420,000 casualties on the British side, which is still more than the <a href="https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf" target="_blank">VA</a> records American soldiers dying in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU" target="_blank"><i>entirety </i>of WWII</a>.) Tolkien walked away from that battle with trench fever, which recurred enough to force him to stay home. That's the person who wrote Bilbo's hopeful story. </div><div><br /></div><div>One thing that is clear about Tolkien's stories is that there are different ways to be heroes. They all have to have some things in common, obviously, but there is still variety among them. Bilbo and Frodo weren't the same person, and obviously their story wasn't <i>exactly </i>the same (the Ring was far more powerful closer to Mordor, etc., etc.,), but the fact that this kind of hope shows up in this quirky, ordinary character just makes me smile. Bilbo is no Aragorn, he's no Thingol, and he's no Boromir, but he's a hero nonetheless. </div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://th.bing.com/th/id/R410a79fb5ecd4d2a5a5cc18bb769e4f1?rik=lXwHh%2bM3Qprxxg&pid=ImgRaw" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="736" height="210" src="https://th.bing.com/th/id/R410a79fb5ecd4d2a5a5cc18bb769e4f1?rik=lXwHh%2bM3Qprxxg&pid=ImgRaw" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://quotesgram.com/img/bilbo-baggins-adventure-quotes/1173825/" target="_blank">Source</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Upon review, I deleted about six paragraphs from this post because they all could be their own post. I loved Tolkien when I was a kid, and I respect Tolkien more and more as I grow up. So you'll probably be hearing a lot more about Tolkien from me. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, to my students who I now know are reading this... you know what to do, right? </div></div></div>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-167423662684012324.post-61227798987509867272021-03-15T02:00:00.002-07:002021-03-23T01:32:41.714-07:00The Sandy Rainstorm (Updated!)<p> To my students who I now know are reading this: stop reading this and go read <i>Lord of the Rings</i>. Or watch the movies. Or listen to the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKRRulco5N4" target="_blank">audiobooks</a>. Or finish your homework. </p><p>I had the remarkably pleasant experience of growing up in the Pacific Northwest, where the weather was notoriously mild. Sure, there's plenty of drippy days, but for the most part, it's not too hot and rarely too cold. Wisconsin got frigid each winter, and that year that <i>Frozen </i>came out it got colder than the North Pole on one day, but the nice trees and the fact that I spent most of my time indoors on the college campus <i>anyway </i>meant that it was far more bearable. </p><p>Shenyang, as I've mentioned previously, is a little different. </p><p>Even after three years here, the weather rarely ceases to catch me unawares, but today may have been the wildest I can remember. When I woke up this morning, I remember thinking that all the clouds certainly looked very dark, especially for after 6AM. I <i>assumed </i>it was rain, but just to be safe, I grabbed my pollution mask anyway.</p><p>At about 9AM, I looked out the window and saw that the sky looked <i>yellow</i>. Yellow sky. My students immediately joked that the aliens were landing. Then I noticed that <i>rain </i>was hitting the windows! The sky was completely covered with clouds, of course, but I was watching it wondering what in the world was <i>in </i>those clouds. </p><p>From 9 to about 11:30, the sky went from yellow to <i>orange. </i>I did the best I could to capture the color, but my cell phone didn't really get the bizarre color. It wasn't just the sky either, by the way - orange light was filtering down into the classroom. The light coming in through my windows was orange. Everything looked tinted orange. </p><p>Finally at about 11:30, it went back to yellow, and then back to a normal gray shade. I was still a bit baffled, and I asked a few of my friends what on earth that was, and they all told me the same thing: Sandstorm and raining at the same time. Some of them speculated that a little bit of pollution was in the air, too. </p><p>The pictures below <i>kind of </i>show how weird it was, but my iPhone can't capture color at all. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uJ1FX_FWSyM/YE8Huk1Zk3I/AAAAAAAAhsU/rKdapWHeLd82UZDEbpdDRjXwdbRM7oc4ACPcBGAsYHg/s1504/IMG_4508.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="846" data-original-width="1504" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uJ1FX_FWSyM/YE8Huk1Zk3I/AAAAAAAAhsU/rKdapWHeLd82UZDEbpdDRjXwdbRM7oc4ACPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4508.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This was at about 9, when the sky was yellow. Not gray, yellow. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tWHOvUYTzNQ/YE8Hui4--GI/AAAAAAAAhsU/FmI15l3pJQkGmTIua7A3rFrrQk4D9sGGwCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4509.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tWHOvUYTzNQ/YE8Hui4--GI/AAAAAAAAhsU/FmI15l3pJQkGmTIua7A3rFrrQk4D9sGGwCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4509.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is a bit better, but it was fully orange. </td></tr></tbody></table><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VY9Fm_rlmpQ/YE8Hul_R3TI/AAAAAAAAhsU/WzkpMMN6JE8jPwsJyW0JQilIuz2iycx-wCPcBGAsYHg/s4032/IMG_4510.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VY9Fm_rlmpQ/YE8Hul_R3TI/AAAAAAAAhsU/WzkpMMN6JE8jPwsJyW0JQilIuz2iycx-wCPcBGAsYHg/s320/IMG_4510.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If you look in the shadow of my reflection, you can kind of see how intense the orange was. It was unreal for me!</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>That is just not something that I've ever seen before. Oh, I've seen sandstorms before, but I haven't seen one where the sky went Blogger orange before! </p><p>Update, 3/23:</p><p>According to the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/china-beijing-worst-sandstorm-in-a-decade-adee96d74319c09a0e69eac9693eb481?fbclid=IwAR2DCnJEI1lL2fcLZIU-T_enf5e4IxQqwYPEmzFr-gmaozl8PhHvhBvvVWU" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>, it was the worst sandstorm in 10 years, and it got south to Beijing. It began in the Gobi Desert (that explains the color, I guess) and some schools there closed. It looks like we got off light!</p><p>I think we have another sandstorm today too, by the way. It's not nearly as bad, however - just an off-yellow in the sky. </p>Marta Stahlfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03468686066605441413noreply@blogger.com0