i reread all of lotr and i’ve been rewatching the movies and i’m extremely curious about the choice to take out every single instance of frodo being brave. like. they had him scramble away from the troll instead of stabbing it in the foot like he does in the books. had him scramble away from the ringwraiths on the hilltop when he actually stabs them. i haven’t gotten to that part yet, but i feel like they probably also took away his steady confrontation with shelob where he basically stares her down.
like their commitment to being true to the books is so strong - they lift so much of the dialogue directly from them! - that it baffles me they’d actively choose to take out all the moments where frodo shows his steel. did they just want to make him more vulnerable and more relatable? esp. since in the books, while the ring does make him tired, depressed, and sick, we don’t actually see that many moments of gollum-like behavior, whereas in the towers frodo’s already obsessing over it and snapping at sam (which i can’t actually recall a single instance of him doing in the books, aside from when sam offers to share bearing the ring with him in rotk).
it’s not that i don’t think movie!frodo is interesting as a hero (i do!) but when people complain about frodo being entirely passive as a hero, it’s because they only got the movie version of him - in the books, he’s not at all passive! he’s not a fighter like merry or pippin (or even sam) but he does take direct action against the people trying to hurt him, he does stand up for himself, and he does show immense courage in the face of darkness and fighting. and idk, i feel like movie!frodo loses something but not having as clearly displayed that internal dignity that book!frodo has.
Yes, all of this, absolutely, and if I may add on: lots of book people complain about losing Tom Bombadil’s scenes and lots of other people (book and movie people) think they would have been pointless. But the problem is that when you lose Tom you also the barrow wights and therefore lose one of Frodo’s BEST scenes that shows him SAVING ALL OF HIS FRIENDS LIVES.
So for those who may not know, basically, after leaving Tom Bombadil, to get out of the Old Forest, and back to Civilized Places, the hobbits have to travel through the Barrow Downs, which are old burial grounds. A mist comes up and separates the hobbits. Merry, Pippin, and Sam all get captured by malevolent barrow wights who are going to kill them, but Frodo keeps his head, crashes the wight’s party and calls in Tom as reinforcements. Like, I need to stress that the three hobbits we see later fighting in major battles, who get much more notice in the movies, would be DEAD if not for Frodo here.
They also took out Frodo’s fight against becoming a wraith, which drives me nuts. Like, how hard would it have been to have him CONSCIOUS and REACTIVE after he gets stabbed by the Morgul blade?! In the books it takes TWICE AS LONG to get to Rivendell, and Frodo has to still walk/climb part of the way because of the terrain. And he’s STILL awake and thinking even after Glorfindel’s horse gets him across the river into Rivendell’s borders! There was?! no need to take all that out and make him helpless just to give Arwen a few random scenes?!
They also left out all his diplomatic scenes which is just sad. Him making a deal with Gollum is technically there, but it’s just bits and pieces of what it was in the books. The scene in Ithilien where Frodo and Sam are just surrounded by Faramir’s men who Frodo is having civil negotiations with? Like?? These are easily added things! Why?
To the people who are asking in the reblogs above, the answer is simple:
If Frodo was that heroic, smart, diplomatic, wise and all around capable, then where would that leave Samwise-theTrueHero-Gamgee?
Upon rewatches, it should be fairly obvious the movie adaptations are pushing 2 protagonists on us: Aragorn, the reluctant but really meant to be people's king hero, and Samwise, the common folk knows better than his affluent charge and braver and gooder than anyone else hero. If you were paying attention, majority of the "Frodo is weak" moments are used to prop up a similar "Samwise is strong" moment (except at the Fords where is was a "Arwen is strong" moment).
Stabbing the troll? Samwise charges in with his pots and pans.
Facing Ringwraiths? Samwise has the line "back you devils".
Confronting Shelob? There is an entire action sequence to attest to Samwise's best moment.
Being diplomatic with Faramir? It is Samwise yelling at Faramir in Osgiliath that Boromir succumbed to the One Ring that changed his mind.
The movie scriptwriters are the reason why the is part of the fandom who will absolutely insist Samwise is the True Hero of the book and would have destroyed the One Ring if he was chosen to be the ring bearer instead.
So I had planned to write something like this for quite a while but couldn't quite find the words (and the time) to write it out. But a particular comment on a reddit post inspired me, and suddenly I could express what I mean exactly.
This is going to be about how most adaptations just don't get what the One Ring's actual deal is, how temptation works, and the very Christian idea of the Fall of Man. So if you are an avid Peter Jackson defender, or someone who despises Christianity (but if that is the case why are you reading Tolkien?!) please just don't bother leaving rants.
Temptation and the Fall of Man
The reddit comment in question is here, but the main point that struck me is:
People who don’t cheat recognize the danger and remove themselves from the situation. People who cheat don’t. It’s really that simple.
The comment itself had plenty of upvotes, but also multiple replies claiming that they are somehow defending cheaters and that cheaters are just that way and non-cheaters cannot be tempted to cheat. And it just struck me how similar that argument is to some people's view of the One Ring.
I had previously mentioned in another post a point on how most of Samwise Gamgee's most avid fans do not recognize that he was actually very succeptible to the One Ring's pull, having held it only for a short amount of time but already having false delusions of grandeur. Yes, he rejected it, but it was just the first temptation and already he could picture the whole thing in his mind.
To fans they just see him rejecting that one instance, and think: that is it - Sam is impervious to the One Ring, and maybe he would have made an even better ringbearer than Frodo (WTH are they smoking really?).
But that is not how temptation works.
Temptation is a process, like water flowing over stone, taking a very long time but also inevitably eroding the defenses slowly and surely. That is why the duration of having borne the One Ring matters. There are of course people more susceptible to the temptation - people who are open to trying new things, people who are at a vulnerable point and desperate, people who do not know better - but the one thing for certain is the only 'safe method' to protect oneself from temptation is to remove it completely.
In Christianity, we term this 'the Fall of Man'. All humans have the propensity for sin, and in fact do sin at least once but more likely multiple times in their lives. No one (except for Jesus) is perfectly good and is able to remain as such. In fact plenty of the 'restrictions' that so many people outside the religion see as being oppressive is actually not directly ordered in the Bible. Things like abstaining before marriage or restricting violent material or works promoting violence are not in the ten commandments. And not every Christian adheres to it either. So why do we do it?
Because of temptation. Because if you give yourself enough rope, someday you might actually hang yourself with it.
King David fell to adultery not because he is a sinner (we all are). It is because he saw the temptation of Bathsheba, and instead of removing himself from the situation, he allowed it to fester to the point where he kept making one bad decision after another.
That is precisely how temptation, and the One Ring, works. No matter how 'good' you think you are, if you are in its presence long enough, you will fall.
The Faramir Problem and What it Actually Means
So why do I state that the adaptations of LotR don't actually understand temptation or the Power of the One Ring? Well, I don't really want to touch RoP (but their version of Sauron should be obvious enough), so I'll illustrate my point with the Peter Jackson adaptation.
And we come to the Faramir Problem.
There are fans of movie-Faramir who love the movie version because it gave Faramir an arc. Even though I don't believe he needs an arc, I also wish to point to the fact that even in the interviews, Peter and co had explained their reason for changing Faramir and it was not because he needed a character arc. It was instead because, and I think this was the exact quote:
It (Faramir rejecting temptation) stripped the One Ring of all power.
And it is this intepretation that is the root of the problem. The fact is: rejecting the temptation of the One Ring the way Faramir did, does not actually strip the One Ring of any power - instead it acknowledges the One Ring has incredible power, one that is even more dangerous than Faramir trusts his own willpower. And so Faramir does not chose to confront the One Ring - he chooses to avoid it.
Multiple times in the book we see this same situation happening: Frodo almost offers the One Ring to a powerful person, and that person rejects the offer vehemently, and always keeps a distance away from it. Gandalf, Galadriel, even Faramir all wanted the temptation kept away from them, and not the chance to confront the One Ring and reject it. As Gandalf explains:
Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.
It is not that the One Ring itself is a power that cannot be fought against or even overpowered. If so, Sauron could never have been defeated in the first place. Instead it is that the One Ring offers power that would inevitably tempt people into doing evil. It is the temptation to use it that, if given the chance to fester, cannot be fought against or overpowered. And that is why so many people chose to remove that temptation altogether by never possessing it in the first place.
Even Sauron himself could never believe that anyone can possess the One Ring and not use it. That is the true reason why he panicked so badly once he heard the One Ring was found - Sauron was afraid of his 'rival' becoming too powerful and that he in his diminished state would no longer be able to fight against this new power. And so he decided to strike before his powers were all ready, to catch the new bearer unprepared and take the One Ring back.
So why is this a problem in the Peter Jackson films? It is because they had erroneously attributed the power of the One Ring to some corrupting force that is inside it, and that can be rejected outright if the person has enough willpower in them.
Let us consider the following.
In movie scene that is analogous to my Gandalf quote above, movie-Gandalf instead says:
Don't tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.
On first sight, it would seem very similar in meaning to make it almost annoying that I'm splitting hairs. But in actuality, they mean different things.
In the book, what Gandalf means is: don't tempt me with the One Ring, because if I have it I will be tempted to use it, and thus become just like Sauron.
Whereas in the movie, it is instead: don't tempt me with the One Ring, because if I use it when tempted, I will be turned into someone just like Sauron.
In the former, Gandalf requests the temptation be removed because he knows he will not be able to withstand temptation. Whereas in the latter, Gandalf requests the temptation be removed because the end result should he be tempted is far too devastating. That is the subtle but important difference: in the book temptation will win and a new Dark Lord will happen, whereas in the movie temptation might win and only if so a new Dark Lord can happen.
Another scene for contrast would be Tom Bombadil playing with the One Ring versus Aragorn rejecting the One Ring. Both scenes are not present in the other medium, but again illustrates how different their One Ring is.
In the book, Tom (an almost divine being) is not tempted be the One Ring at all, instead seeing it as a trinklet with no power. This is the scene that actually strips the One Ring of all power. And the reasoning is simple: Tom has no need for that power (being incredibly powerul himself) and so there is no temptation for him. There is no wavering, not even for a second, and it illustrates that the One Ring is not all-powerful in and of itself - an impossible foe. Instead it is the human condition of falling prey to temptation, and the test for everyone is whether they know to avoid situations where they can be tempted.
In the movie, we have a small scene where Aragorn comes across Frodo in Amon Hen, and Frodo tempts Aragorn with the One Ring, testing if he will turn out to be like Boromir. And after a tense moment, Aragorn rejects the One Ring, claiming he would have gone with Frodo all the way to Mount Doom. And despite the reason they would give for the Faramir change in the Two Towers, this scene actually strips the One Ring of power as well. Because the direct contrast with Boromir before him seems to be saying: look if you are actually good enough, you can reject the One Ring, all the way to Mount Doom. Boromir was just not good enough, unlike Aragorn.
And this part also shows Peter and co.'s biases.
In the book, the reason Tom can be not tempted is because he is essentially 'not of this world' and so not bound by its problems. Everyone else is susceptible to falling to temptation, and the best way is to avoid it altogether (by destroying the One Ring).
Whereas in the movie, the temptation is very strong, but the best and purest and 'goodest' can defeat it. The heroes that the movie makesr wished to push (Aragorn and Samwise) can outright reject the One Ring, when everyone else (including Frodo) falls short. That is why Faramir cannot reject the One Ring - he is lesser than Aragorn.
The films missed the point: the test is not to reject the One Ring. The test is to avoid the One Ring altogether. As Faramir states:
Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee.
Plenty of fans fixate on his earlier quote of not taking the One Ring if it lay by a highway, not actually catching the essence of the statement, but this later quote actually illustrates it quite well. Faramir does not only reject the One Ring because he is humble and good and will not use the evil thing. He rejects it because it is a temptation and thus a danger to Minas Tirith, even if it gives great power when used. To even allow this temptation into Gondor would be poison to all its people, and so he refuses to bring it home.
And for the final thing to show how the One Ring is misunderstood in the Peter Jackson films, we have Frodo.
Frodo and the Temptation of Christ (but Failing)
I think the book portrayed Frodo as tremendously heroic, but also as ultimately human. As Tolkien states in his letter:
I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum – impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.
Throughout this entire piece I have been repeating that the best way to counter the One Ring is to be away from it. It is not just the best way, it is the only way. So what about the one person who is not allowed to be away from the One Ring?
As Faramir says:
If you took this thing on yourself, unwilling, at others' asking, then you have pity and honour from me.
Honour is easy enough to understand, but pity? Because Faramir, right from the start, knew it was an impossible task, and Frodo would be forever changed by it. That is why he was so keen to avoid seeing the One Ring himself.
In the book, we have Frodo Baggins: a 50 year old man who embarks on a journey to save the world. He is old enough to be in possession of himself, he is clearly in-charge among the hobbits, and even able to converse with the other more noble members of the fellowship with dignity and wisdom.
When he took the One Ring at the Council of Elrond, he may not have understood all its implications, but he knows it is life-changing and it is after much consideration that Frodo took up the burden. And Elrond's quote after demonstrates the enormity of the task:
But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin and Túrin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them.
Frodo saw the temptation, and instead of avoiding it like everyone else, he took it upon himself and weathered it all the way right till the end at Mount Doom. Where he failed.
Because at the end of the day, Frodo is just human, and could not do the impossible. No one can. He may have eventually gave into the temptation, but he did his very best, and that gave the world a chance to be saved (by Gollum). That is why so many readers would say Frodo makes an almost Christ-like figure, choosing to be tempted instead of avoiding it because the world needs him to do so.
On the other hand, the Frodo in the movie is just barely out of his teens, and portrayed to be full of youthful wonder and excitement. He is frequently protected by Samwise, and even Merry and Pippin at times, and is treated as a protected youth more than a fellow comrade by the others in the fellowship.
When he took the One Ring in the Council of Elrond, he was essentially forced to step in between the quarrel between the dwarves and the elves. He didn't seem to grasp the actual hopelessness of the task, and Elrond and Gandalf didn't really enlighten him either.
Slowly thoughout the three films, we see the bright and cheery Frodo fading away to the influence of the One Ring, described as almost drug-like. He is not longer really in control of himself, and depends very heavily on Samwise and even Gollum. This culminates in the "go away Sam!" scene where Frodo seems to even lose logical thought and his rationality.
But the one scene I want to highlight is the scene right at the slopes of Mount Doom.
In the book:
With a gasp Frodo cast himself on the ground. Sam sat by him. To his surprise he felt tired but lighter, and his head seemed clear again. His will was set, and only death would break it. He knew that all the hazards and perils were now drawing together to a point: the next day would be a day of doom, the day of final effort or disaster, the last gasp.
“Now for it! Come now master” said Sam as he struggled to his feet. He bent over Frodo, rousing him gently. Frodo groaned; but with a great effort of will he staggered up; and then he fell upon his knees again. He raised his eyes with difficulty to the dark slopes of Mount Doom towering above him, and then pitifully and with sobs he began to crawl forward on his hands.
Sam looked at him and wept in his heart, but no tears came to his dry and stinging eyes. “I said I’d carry him, if it broke my back,” he muttered, “and I will!”
“Come, Mr. Frodo!” he cried. “I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you and it as well.”
The reason why I quote the whole section of the book in full is that many people when recalling this scene have in their mind the images of the movie: Frodo caught in the throes of a living nightmare and unable to escape much less move forward in his mission. Samwise sees his torment and makes the decision for both of them to carry Frodo forward when he is unable to do so himself, and proceed with the destruction of the One Ring.
But that is not the case in the book at all. Instead Frodo had not given up and even though his body was hurting with every step and temptation haunted his mind, he was still determined to crawl his way to the Crack of Doom to complete his mission. It is the sight of Frodo suffering so much but still so determined that caused Samwise to take action - he cannot do what Frodo can, bearing the One Ring the way Frodo had done. But Samwise had promised to carry Frodo because that is what he can do, and so he did it.
Again we have the difference between book and movie in the in handling of the One Ring. In the book, Frodo is nearing the end of his impossible task, and doomed to give in to temptation. But he struggles every step of the way, proving his moral fibre. He fought the good fight, and even if he lost right at the end, Eru Iluvatar will see it done.
But in the movie, Frodo has given in. He can no longer fight. Instead it is Samwise, the movie producer chosen hero, who has to step in and fight Frodo's battles for him. In the book, even if Samwise wasn't there, Frodo would have crawled every step of the way. Samwise's presence is an aid to help shorten the distance and torment. Whereas in the movie, if Samwise wasn't there, the quest is over. That is such a major difference, but because throughout the whole three films watchers have been conditioned to a different Frodo, we are persuaded to accept this narrative - Frodo isn't the hero, it is Samwise who is the true hero instead.
Conclusion
I actually first came into contact with Tolkien through the movies (unlike Tolkien's bff's work Narnia where I knew of the books first). However watching the films and reading the books gave me an almost surreal experience of feeling like they are at times two completely different stories, despite sharing the same characters, storylines, or even exact quotes.
I pondered really hard on this and the conclusion I came up with is that LotR and all of Tolkien's works are fundamentally Christian (despite not being allegories like the afore mentioned Narnia). Because of Tolkien's deep belief in Catholicism, the Bible themes and Christian way of thinking are all woven into the fabrics of his work. When you share these values, everything makes sense and proceeds rationally from each other. The characters come alive, the society feels real, the history is believable.
Why are word convents so important that Isildur could curse people to be bound to his word even after they died? Isn't it stupid to blow a loud horn to announce partaking in a secret mission? How is it that Eowyn chose to give up fighting and become a healer despite wanting so badly to be in the battle just days earlier?
These are just some questions that secular people, when faced with a Christian answer, will feel baffled by. And in a certain way, I understand Peter and Co. choosing to 'go secular' with their intepretations so that a larger audience will be exposed to Tolkien's works.
Telling people to bind themselves with restrictions and avoid temptations is not what the modern freedom-loving audience wants to hear. Instead what they really want is a hero, seemingly relatable and humble, but also capable of doing things that no human can do (rejecting the One Ring).
They want to be told that: "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for."
And not: "‘Few may do that with honour,’ he answered. ‘But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord’s return? If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.”
Where we can all discuss on the various ways PJ had messed up Tolkien without needing to defend ourselves from movie fans.
I personally love the movies as great fantasy-action-adventure movies but the only part I consider Tolkien at all is the soundtrack. I want somewhere where I can vent with like-minded people on how absolutely and completely PJ messed up the themes, characters and plot, but without having to worry that I will be bombarded by tons on "you obviously don't understand the difference in medium".
I do, in fact, understand changes needed to be made from book-to-script. I just happen to not agree with 99% of the changes made. I don't deny the original trilogy is made by fans of the book from a place of love, but I do deny PJ & Co.'s headcannons that now movie fans consider canon.
I want to be able to rant about all the character assassinations of my favourites (Legolas, Pippin, Faramir, Bilbo, Thranduil, ...) without having movie!Aragorn, movie!Boromir and movie!Thorin fans butting in.
I want to be able to discuss actual thematic stuff like the nature of the Ring and how it works without being bashed over the head with cookie cutter theories like 'absolute power corrupts'.
I want to be able to read a reply and not having to wonder if the other person has ever read any book by Tolkien because it is so far divorced from canon I can't even picture it.
Anyone, out there? Or do I have to start one myself?
I love the LOTR films, and this is very high criticism, BUT three things that could, and should have been better in my opinion:
3. Legolas and Gimli.
Legolas is a very interesting character, and he's and elf sor of course he's somewhat perfect, but the films overdo it. When the Balrog appears, he nearly drops his bow.
He's really scared. Understandably so, I might add. He also has stubborn moments (when they're supposed to be blindfolded in Lothlórien), and nobody loves him any less - quite the opposite, because that not-a-single-flaw stair-surfing guy is annoying as soon as I really start thinking about him.
And Gimli. Gimli is really fierce and a great fighter and so much more than just fucking comic relief. Also, dwarfs aren't sprinters - Tolkien said it himself (see The Hobbit; he says that dwarfs can walk very long distances with heavy baggage in pretty short times).
He also keeps up with Legolas and Aragorn when they pass through Rohan; they don't have to wait every few steps for him like it seems in the films. He also very much doesn't fall over every other second.
Besides that, have you ever heard him talk about Aglarond? You should. It's amazing. Not even talking about the relationships between him and elves (Galadriel and Legolas especially), it's so interesting and cool to see!
2. Faramir.
If you've only seen the films: you have literally no idea who Faramir is.
He's Boromir's younger brother, yes, and the look pretty similar, but they are not the same.
They loved each other but they were very different; Boromir was always a warrior, while Faramir liked to read and learn and was much quieter.
Boromir - I love him, but still - was corrupted by the ring (though he defeated it in the end), through its promise of weilding enough power to defeat the enemy.
When Faramir found out that Frodo had the ring with him, he didn't once think about using it. He knew about its power, and the danger along with it, and refused to even see it.
Never once did he contemplate to sent the ring to Gondor - instead, he gave Frodo and Sam all the help he could, even though he didn't truly believe in their success.
He was an honourable man, and he was never a warrior, and most importantly he was never tempted by the ring, or at least never visibly. Nothing of that "the ring goes to Gondor" shit.
Like, there was another action scene with Nazgûl, but aside from that? All they did was completely destroy and change a fantastic character.
The scenes with him are some of my favourites, and I'm really dissappointed in the films on that behalf.
The Horn of Gondor.
This looks like a small detail, but this is honestly my biggest point.
The Horn of Gondor, given from the father to the eldest son, for generations, ever since back in the past when they still used to hunt the big wild oxes on the fields of Rhûn (badly transcribed from what I read years ago in my native language, so excuse innaccuracies). Whenever it is blown within the border of Gondor, or what it once used to be, a friend shall hear it and come to aid.
And nobody deserved this horn more than Boromir; in the end, he blew it hard enough to make it break in half.
And how does this great horn sound, you may ask? In films filled with tons of fantastic sound effects and other absolutely stunning horns?
Why, like a fucking car honk of course!
Like, they could have so easily done this well! They did it with every single other horn in the entire trilogy! Why not this, this horn that has actually quite some importance (in the books)?
Every time I hear it, I have to laugh so hard - I don't really want to laugh during an epic but desperate fight, and seconds before I bawl my eyes out.
It just... doesn't fit into the films, into the world, at all.
It's very very sad, and for something that could have easily (presumably) been done properly, I'm honestly kind of pissed off.
Now, as I said, this is criticism on a very high level.
I love the films, they are fantastic, and I don't really see any way to do it any better, especially with a book like LOTR that is actually pretty much impossible to turn into a film.
These are details.
I'm just a huge nerd absolutely obsessed with the books, and often bothered by this.
And, I mean, what a better place to dump this than on a nerd site, amriright?
Always open to talk about this btw - I'd love to, actually. I just probably won't stop.
1. Everyone mentions how Gimli is not comic relief and okay, but more importantly: GIVE BACK LEGOLAS HIS SENSE OF HUMOUR. No emo boy or angsty teenager shit (looking at you, hobbit movies), Legolas is supposed to be the most carefree cheerful and constantly sassing Gandalf member of the fellowship. He views the entire rest of the fellowship as children and plays with them as such, all your moments of levity can be given by him. Don't make him another dour elf stereotype damn it!
2. The main reasons for the changes to Faramir is to make Aragorn and Boromir look better. Sure, you may need Faramir to be an 'obstacle' but he could have been that just as easily without succumbing to the Ring. Instead of making the decision to 'send his father a mighty gift', just have Faramir decide he needs more time to deliberate such an important matter and bring Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath where he has more time to make a decision. Then upon seeing the effect of the Nazgul he makes the correct decision to let them go.
The fact is Faramir has to succumb to the ring and his daddy issues to make Aragorn and Boromir's decisions look better in hindsight. Firstly for Aragorn, he resisted at the first time of asking so he is obviously better than Faramir. Secondly for Boromir, even his younger brother also fell prey so it's not Boromir's fault to have fallen.
Faramir is essentially there to just serve as a 'look, our heroes from the 1st movie are better/you are right in loving them/they are not flawed' beacon.
I might elaborate on these individual incidents on later posts but upon multiple viewings I can finally put words to why I hated the characterizations of multiple characters in the LotR movie trilogy.
It is because PJ & Co. 's favourite method of storytelling is to pull down side characters to build up their own heroes.
And I'm talking about the 'holy' trinity of Sam, Aragorn and Thorin.
Frankly, book readers should've seen it coming from a mile away.
So let's start with Sam. Raise your hand if you've ever seen any fan trumpeting that Sam is the 'real' hero. And nine out of ten, these fans were introduced into LotR through the movies. Congratulations Pete, you've succeeded!
Now before touching the Tolkien letter 'supporting' this idea (where if you read the full letter you'll understand Sam is only more of a chief hero when compared to a very specific character and that character is not Frodo *coughAragorncough*), I would like to draw attention to one simple fact - is there any other major character in the trilogy that has more of his flaws ignored, covered-up or outright repurposed to become a good quality? Because I come up with nothing.
Sam is the quintessential hobbit. He represents all their best traits - that assured loyalty, the steadfast friendship, the simple appreciation for nature. But he is also a representative of all of their worst traits - the closed-mindedness, the blind adherence to hierarchy and the prejudice against the lowly and the unknown.
But Sam does none of that!
Yeah, you'd be correct - if you only watched the movies. That is precisely the point.
The absolute heart of LotR is Frodo's journey, but Frodo is a 'terrible' male lead for a Fantasy themed action adventure film. He is a middle-aged man who sets out on a selfless journey to save the world (but not for himself). He doesn't have a dramatic character arc, majority of his battles are internal and require monologues, and the only visible sign of his burden is completely up to the polish of the individual actor's performance. For the epic type of film PJ planned, Frodo is a nightmare.
But there is an easy solution for this - Frodo is accompanied by Sam throughout the entire journey. Sam, unlike Frodo, has underdog written all over him. It is easy to make a character arc about a nobody becoming a somebody. He has a major battle one-to-one against a giant spider. He is allowed a large variety of emotions that don't require depth (excepting key moments) because he is meant to be simple-minded.
So what does PJ & Co. do?
They make Sam the main lead, of course. The beginning chapters are understandably condensed, but Sam still gets his 'dropping eaves on Mr. Frodo' part of the story untouched, whereas all of Frodo's planning, all of Merry's intelligence, and Pippin and Fatty's contributions were all cut out.
We soon meet Strider, and immediately Sam's foolhardiness is front and centre in the book. He looks down upon this lowly ranger and almost interrogates him only to have Strider illustrate how such behaviour could have easily gotten Sam and Frodo killed. It is Frodo who speaks with wisdom and questions Strider in a more moderate way.
And this entire farce of speaking out of turn happens again when they meet Faramir. Sam is not only not wise, his is foolish enough to make the exact same mistake twice. And similarly Faramir reprimands him and tells him not to speak before Frodo has spoken.
But instead of highlighting these incidents as a flaw Sam should learn to grow from, both times in the movies PJ instead frames the incidents as Sam being justified in his words and defence of Frodo. His bravado is praised as being a loyal friend, instead of the foolish actions they are.
But even with erasing Sam's faults, there is still a problem - Frodo. Frodo's relationship with Sam has become closer than master/servant, but there is still an inate imbalance (more due to Frodo's age and wisdom than anything else) to frame it as just simple friendship.
Personally I feel it is like Sam views Frodo as his senpai, his leading light. And Frodo wishes to guide Sam to learn new things, because Sam's presence as a quintessential hobbit is so much like home that he remains a constant comfort to Frodo no matter the burden of the One Ring.
But Frodo and Sam having a senpai-kouhai relationship is troublesome, because Frodo never leaves. He is the one Sam consistently depends on to lead him, and book!Sam's most major growth actually occurs after Frodo has left for the Undying Lands and Sam grows to become a capable Mayor.
So naturally Frodo has to be weakened to let Sam shine. Firstly, the age difference is removed completely, even going in the opposite direction - Sam is now older than Frodo and cares for him like an elder brother or butler. When faced with dangerous situations like the Nazgul or the troll, Sam is the fearless one instead of Frodo. Sam's wariness is always affirmed by the narrative and Frodo's wisdom in discerning people is putdown as blind kindness.
Nowhere is this more obvious than the Frodo-Sam-Gollum relationship.
In the book, Sam's wariness towards Gollum stems from both the creature's poor reputation, but also from petty jealousy. The threat of betrayal from Gollum is real, yes, but throughout the book Frodo has it under control. He never trusts Gollum more than he needed to, and in fact was winning Gollum's trust with his wisdom, kindness and fair-minded treatment.
But Sam had different ideas. Before Gollum, Sam had always been the closest to Mr. Frodo, not only because of their close relationship, but also because Sam sees himself as the most useful to Frodo. Sure, Merry and Pippin and friends, but neither can serve Mr. Frodo the way he can. Until Gollum.
Gollum is brought in as an indispensable guide and Sam immediately feels threatened. He doesn't actually physically threaten Gollum, but instead resorts to childish name-calling to put Gollum down. He constantly wished to assert dominance over Gollum, to show he is closer to Frodo no matter how good a job Gollum does. Sam basically just wants to 'put him in his lowly place'.
It is this relentless bullying that ends up destroying Gollum's redemption (something also in a Tolkien letter, but Sam fans won't bring this one up), and forces the destruction of the ring to be 'an act of God' instead of Gollum's own will.
This is the biggest flaw in Sam - that he is quick to judge and slow to pity, a trait highly unsuitable for a ringbearer, much less the 'main' hero. This is also the main reason for Frodo's character change and the dynamics change in the relationship between all three.
It is extremely difficult to just cut out all the antagonistic actions Sam has taken against Gollum, so instead the path PJ & Co. took is to 'make Sam right'.
Instead of Frodo being in control and trying to make Sam and Gollum get along, make it that Frodo is the helpless one and being pulled in two different directions. Sam, being the hero, is correct. And Gollum naturally has to be wrong. Frodo, because of the 'evil influence of the Ring' chooses wrongly and believes Gollum, giving rise to the infamous "Sam, go home" scene.
This change of the relationship dynamics both strengthens Sam's moral position as well as weakens Frodo's wisdom. And to PJ & Co. that is a good thing, because now Sam is truly the main lead.
I'll think I continue Aragorn and Thorin another day, but you can be assured that PJ & Co. just uses the same tricks again *coughFaramirandThranduilcough*.
I’m going to say one thing about the fandom aspect of rop, and then continue quietly reblogging posts roasting the show itself.
For some context: I have been a fan of the LOTR movies from the moment I first laid eyes on them 20 years ago, but literally nothing makes me more angry than what PJ did to Faramir. I have refused to watch his scenes in TTT for 15+ years because of how angry it makes me. (I literally even walked out of the theater during those scenes when I watched a screening of it this week!)
However, I am still more than capable of being friends and having a civil conversation with people who like movie!Faramir, even if I will make my opinions on the subject pretty clear.
With that context: I keep on seeing people going around saying that we need to not gatekeep fans who come in through this show, and in concept I do agree with that… after all, I have some experience being friends with people and welcoming people even if they prefer movie!Faramir to book!Faramir. That is not anything that is difficult, and I don’t think it’s something that’s hard for most people.
But I do feel like an important addendum is being missed.
I will “gatekeep” people who insist on telling me I am a bad person for not liking the show.
We have all seen the type - shill media (in particular) that smeared JRR Tolkien’s name, bashed Christopher Tolkien, hid behind the diversity of their cast and said that only racists dislike what they are doing (even though there are six trillion things wrong with the show that has absolutely nothing to do with people’s skin color). And the fans that come in through that shill media lens are ones that I have no interest in interacting with, in becoming friends with, or in welcoming.
I am not going to seek out people who join the fandom through this show. And I am not going to harass them. Because above all I am against harassing people. I am not going to reblog any fanart or gifsets or fanfics they make with mean comments. I will be kind and polite and welcoming if I end up in a conversation with them.
But the second I am told I am a bad person for disliking rop, I no longer welcome you. You do not get to enter this fandom and immediately tell people who were here before rop that they are terrible people.
That is where I draw the line.
If you don’t do that and enter the fandom through watching rop, I might question your taste but I will welcome you with open arms and will hope to help introduce you to the wealth of incredible stories that await you in the books.
If you do do that, while I still will not seek you out or harass you, I will not welcome you either.
Also something I posted on another platform before, but with every viewing of the Hobbit, it just bugs me more and more...
Of course, I'm talking about Tauriel. *facepalm*
So I really hated a certain OC elf on first viewing, and I had thought it was her being OC that was the main cause. But now having watched it again, I realised what was my real beef with her: That she made all other characters OOC when interacting with her.
See Alfrid was really slimy and annoying and an OC as well. But I'm actually okay with him, because the characters he interacts with remain consistent and in character. The master showers favour on him because he is a buttkisser, and hates Bard because Bard doesn't. Bard forgives his nonsense and betrayals because he is a merciful person - he takes in Kili and company despite being insulted by Thorin just moments before. The characters are not changed just to accommodate Alfrid's presence in the story, instead their personalities are built up through these snippets.
This is not the case for the elf. Firstly, Kili's loyalty to Thorin becomes compromised. He is previously shown to be fiercely loyal to Thorin, and yet his death - defending Thorin right till the end in the book - becomes a love sacrifice which serves no purpose: it has no impact on the story except for an OC who should not have been there in the first place.
Next, Legolas is affected as well: throughout the movie he is seen to be obedient to his father and loyal to his king up until she opposes it. Then he immediately does a 180 and is willing to even commit treason for her. And at the end of the movies this serves no purpose as well: he has the exact same opinion of dwarves as he had right from the start (refer to his comment on meeting Gimli in FotR).
Finally, Thranduil is the most schizophrenic when interacting with her. He is supposed to be racist and elitist, but makes her Captain of the Guard and is stated to openly show her favour. He is portrayed to be petty and unreasonable, yet has let her throw tantrums at him without much consequence. He is said to be cold and without love, but shows concern for her. It almost reads like it is Thranduil, not Legolas, who was part of the love triangle.
The inclusion of this OC was handled so badly that all the characters who interacted with her for any length of time had to be out of character for her story arc to come through. Instead of building up personalities, her presence tore them down by having others do actions that did not make sense to their character.
I think that was what annoyed me the most.
The way I see it is that the OC could have been a very good addition and served a different love story: to develop Thranduil as a foil to both Thorin and Bard, and highlight the love that Thranduil had for his wife and consequently his son - Legolas.
Consider the following plot points they added:
1. Thranduil has lost his wife at some point and only has the White Gems and Legolas as memory of her.
2. Thranduil had been hurt by dragon fire (implied).
3. Thranduil is isolationist and does not like to lead his people into danger.
4. An unrelated female elf serves as his Captain of Guard, instead of his son.
5. Thranduil had not spoken of his wife ever since her death, and relations with Legolas is cold.
What they could have done is this:
We are introduced to Legolas and OC, OC is the captain but it is obvious that Legolas leads better. They return to Mirkwood and it is OC who reports to Thranduil, not Legolas. Have OC say that Legolas performed well, not the opposite. Have Thranduil scold her for encouraging him (to do battle) and not because of some perceived crush Legolas has on her.
In the jail scene Legolas is jealous, not because of some romance, but because of OC's position as Captain. He is the Prince of Mirkwood, but Thranduil favours OC and makes her captain instead. He is chaffing at the bit to show what he can do. After discovering the dwarves are gone, they chase them down and fight orcs. Again Legolas performs better, and he nets a prisoner. But after some interrogation, Thranduil kills the orc when the One is mentioned and Legolas doesn't understand why. Thranduil then orders Mirkwood to be locked down.
Give Legolas agency and make him the one to break the curfew on his own: he wants to find more orcs and find out what Thranduil is hiding from him. OC goes with him to protect him. They find the link to Gundabud, and Legolas recalls his mother was killed there. They take a day trip, and instead of just listening to Legolas rant, OC subtly indicates that Thranduil's isolationist attitudes may have something to do with Legolas' mother's death.
They return to find that Mirkwood is deserted - the army has left to fight Thorin at Erebor. Legolas is worried because he knows the orcs are going there as well and leaves immediately to inform his father. Thranduil is furious to find Legolas at the battlefield, but when he sees Legolas' worry he finally does not dismiss him. They ride together into Dale where Thranduil's elk is killed (and Legolas worries for a moment) but father and son soon dispatch many orcs. Then the death toll rises and Thranduil wants to retreat.
Legolas defies him, but not by threatening to kill Thranduil; instead he simply states he won't leave and he'll fight himself if he has to. This attacks Thranduil at his weakest point: all his isolationist policies, not appointing Legolas captain, etc was to protect Legolas by keeping him safe. And now Legolas is putting himself in danger.
Thranduil recalls perhaps a conversation, or just an image of Bain staying by Bard's side and helping him out. He sees Kili and Fili following Thorin into danger. And he realizes he is all wrong. By isolating himself, his son and his country, he is not protecting them - he is not letting them grow. So he decides to continue to fight. And right at the end of the battle Legolas says he will not return (to being protected), and Thranduil accepts that. He tells Legolas to look for Aragorn, thereby giving consent for Legolas to go into danger, but also to grow.
And after all that I realized that what I really wanted was a complete rewrite of Legolas' character in the Hobbit movies because *damn*, they did him nasty.
I loved the Lord of the Rings movies. Years after they were first screened I barely managed to watch through the Hobbit movies.
‘What happened?’ I had often wondered. So this is more of an introspective on where the books, the first three movies, and then the next three, had differed in the way that they felt to me. Do note that I do not necessary feel that all changes are made for the worse (though personally I did not think many were made for the better, either).
So to start things off: let’s talk about themes.
My introduction to Tolkien came from the Lord of the Rings movies, but just a small peek at a scene with the ents and it was enough to encourage me to read the book (my preferred medium) before I came back to watching the movies for real. And like many, I had felt that the movies stayed true to the many themes brought up in the book, and any minor squabbles I had was due to changes to the characters’ personalities or events that played out differently.
But then I delved deeper into Tolkien’s legendarium with the Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle-Earth. And when I came back the Lord of the Rings and its movie adaptations, suddenly I did not feel the same anymore. Because those differences that I had thought were small changes of character or events were actually due to changes made closer to the root: the themes of the movies, or at least their interpretation of the themes, were different and so everything that followed had to change. And the clearest example would be the theme of power and the nature of the One Ring.
When one speaks of power in a fairy tale or a fantasy story, the natural inclination would be to consider it as a martial or magical ability. With it a character can do greater things, can achieve higher heights, an add-on of strength and might, if you will. And so when it comes to the rings of power, my initial impression was much like that of the movies: these rings each gave great power to their respective ring-bearers.
Therefore when considering the One Ring, I was tempted to follow the movies’ interpretation: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I took on the idea of the One Ring as being a sort of storage space for all (or at least a great portion) of Sauron’s power, and whoever wore it had access to this great power which would cause them to become corrupted, either due to Sauron’s taint or due to such great power getting into their head. And therefore, just as Aragorn had said during the Council of Elrond scene: “You cannot wield it! None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone.”
Yet the book makes it clear that Sauron feared others wielding his ring, indeed with the appearance of Pippin and then Aragorn in the palantir, it had each time forced Sauron’s hand into making hasty decisions that aided the heroes. So it is clear that the One Ring could be wielded by others, and that its purpose in the story was not just that of absolute power to be used as a cautionary tale.
Instead I would draw more attention to the exact wording of the inscription on the One Ring: One Ring to rule them all. As opposed to the magnitude of the power being the source of corruption (as posited by the movies), I would think that it is more the usage of the power which may lead to the ring-bearer becoming corrupted.
A point that niggled at me in my early reading of the Lord of the Rings was Galadriel’s curious statement when she refused the One Ring: “I pass the test”. It was not until I read the Silmarillion that I came upon my answer: just like Boromir, who had asked his father how long it would take for the steward of Gondor to claim kingship, Galadriel too wished to rule over others. It was for this reason that the doom of Mandos fell upon her: in coming to Middle-Earth and seeking to rule over her own she had fallen afoul of the doom, and instead of seeking immediate repentance she chose exile to Middle-Earth instead.
And so when the One Ring came to Lothlorien, it was just like a test made for her: will she once again make the choice to rule over others? But time has worn her down and she had learnt her lesson. Galadriel rejects the One Ring, and in doing so finally receives the pardon for her previous ambition and pride. She had passed the test.
Viewed in this lens, suddenly a lot of things in the movies made sense. Why did Bilbo turn into a scary monster in Rivendell? Because the One Ring corrupted him. Whereas in the books Bilbo remained fairly unaffected, for not once in his usage of the ring did he ever seek to dominate others. No indeed, he even showed mercy to Gollum at sword-point.
Why did Faramir bring Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath? Because the One Ring corrupted him. While book Faramir could have let them go because, where others see positions of leadership as opportunities to rule, Faramir sees his position of power as a duty to serve.
Why did Frodo send Sam away? Because the One Ring corrupted him. However Frodo did not fear Sam would steal the One Ring from him in the books, because he understood Sam’s loyalty and friendship, and did not think of himself as someone who could order Sam around on beck and call. And yet here we come to a strange situation: because Frodo fell to the One Ring.
When Isildur took the One Ring, he sought to keep it as a heirloom for his kingdom, as a symbol of dominion over others. When Smeagol took the One Ring, he sought it as a birthday present, and demanded that Deagol give it up to him. We had established Frodo as our hero, who did not look for such glory or treasures, so how did Frodo come to be corrupted?
“In the last need, Sméagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command.”
When Frodo first saw Gollum he felt pity, much like how Bilbo did. But circumstances forced Frodo to take Gollum as their guide into Mordor, and over time Frodo's wariness grew. As a safeguard against future treachery, Frodo spoke of using the ring against Gollum to make him obey.
It was a warning to Gollum, but was also a dark thought on Frodo's mind. And so it came, that through this thought the idea of dominion took root in Frodo, and led to him declaring ownership over the One Ring.
So in essence, the theme of power plays out very differently in the book and the movies. Where in the movies absolute power is an external corruptive force to be destroyed completely, in the book the corruption lies within. Even a single thought of enforcing your will over another's can lead to ruin, because the withholding of another person's free will is to go against Eru Iluvatar's gift.
Although I understand and accept the way the movies dealt with the One Ring, I cannot help but think it a missed opportunity - instead of the often asked and answered question of: Would you take the ring to have great power? These movies should have instead dealt with: Would you take the ring to have people obey you? Because I think it is far more interesting and fulfilling to conquer the monsters within.
The other day my sister watched Cruella on Netflix. I myself do not intend to watch it, so I didn't mind discussing it with her since spoilers would not matter. And boy did the main character's backstory/motivations get me mad. Onto my rant...
So, there are so many things wrong about a villain like Cruella motivated by revenge due to trained dogs that I do not wish to go into every single one. And I'm sure many have already been brought up by others, so I'm only going to address those in particular that really irked me.
Cruella did not hate Dalmatians/dogs/animals.
This is the number one misconception that I see both lovers of the new movie and detractors keep on bringing up. They seem to always be hung-up on the idea of a 'puppy killer' and make it like wanting to kill the Dalmatian puppies is the only reason why she is a villain.
Spoiler alert: It is not.
What does make Cruella evil is her utter selfishness and lack of concern for anything (even the lives of other living creatures) other than herself. To Cruella, what she wants she gets and that is all that matters; everything else could be solved if she threw enough money at it. It is this condescending attitude that makes Roger take an instant dislike to her, and it is also this same attitude that leads to the later 'puppy killing' ideas.
The main conflict of the story is the difference between what Cruella sees when she looks at the puppies and what the rest of the world (along with us, the audience sees). Where we see cute living beings brought into the world to care for and play with, Cruella sees spots and white smoothness that will make a beautiful fur coat.
And Cruella loves fur coats, adores them even. So she thinks: well, I will pay for it, and throws money at Roger and Anita, expecting them to sell the puppies to her. And she is completely shocked when they reject her offer, because it is just unfathomable for Cruella that anyone would reject her (and her money).
I won't go into the details of how the plot develops on from there, but the gist of my point is this: to Cruella the dogs serve the function of being turned into fur coats, so the act of killing them is just a method of getting their fur. It isn't because she actively dislikes the dogs just for existing. I mean just like I mentioned to a friend: if Dalmatians could shed their fur the way you could gather wool from sheep, Cruella wouldn't have even killed the dogs. To her they were disposable, not hated.
Just because the original is about Dalmatians doesn't mean Cruella's story has to be about them as well
Cruella's one true love is fur and that means all types of animal furs. In the animation, she is always wearing a white one (notably without spots) and that is the reason why she wanted the puppies in the first place. In all likelihood, she wants to collect fur coats with all kinds of designs since she expressed disgust when the Dalmatian puppies were born without spots (which would make a fur coat of their skin another plain white one).
Therefore to make it just so that trained Dalmatians are the ones to kill her mother is frankly ridiculous. It would be far more realistic for it to be a bear or a wolf or a tiger to kill her mother, and then Cruella had hunters hunt that wild animal down to make a fur coat, and then she grows up loving fur coats and wanting to kill every other animal to make more fur coats as trophies (see wouldn't that be a more interesting storyline?)
Like really? Trained Dalmatians as murder weapons?
Revenge due to her mother's death is very unconvincing for a character like Cruella
And this is the one that bugs me most of all. Cruella's characterization as a villain isn't one of those where she is the mastermind of evil deeds or her actions are all bad or she means to do bad things to people. Cruella's evilness comes from a lack of care.
She literally does not care about others, and that is why she is so disliked.
Cruella's entrance is her bursting into a private residence as if she owns the property. She waves her cigarette (and pen) around dirtying everywhere and everyone and she is not even bothered to apologize. She demands information about the puppies like she is entitled to it, orders around people like they are her servants and is utterly shocked when they refuse her or talk back.
This lack of care also translates into the puppy issue: she treats them like pieces of fabric one buys to make clothes because to her, that is exactly what they are. She cannot see worth in anything unrelated to herself (note how she rags on Roger's career to Anita without caring that she is in their house), and everyone and everything is beneath her and should cater to her whims.
So how can such a self-centered person be motivated by revenge for another person's behalf? If it was Cruella herself who was bullied by the Dalmatians and somehow escaped death and came back for revenge, that may be more believable. But for her mother's sake? Nu-uh, I'd bet she wouldn't be all that bothered and would only care about any inheritance she was in line for.
So yeah, yet another live action Disney movie that I don't intend to watch ever. I mean I don't think there is a single one that I liked from Alice in Wonderland onwards, but it is good (bad?) to see that Cruella keeps the streak going on.
And I might have to find time to write about the abomination that is Maleficent but that will trigger me for a much much longer rant.
EDIT:
I just came up with a brilliant idea (if I do say so myself) for a sad backstory that doesn't completely wreck Cruella's character.
See, Cruella was a budding fashion designer with incredible talent and a rich and supportive family. One day she meets a new transfer who is handsome and talented. He also wears a old ragged bearskin fur coat that his dad (a hunter) made for him.
They become friends and Cruella falls in love with him. She tries to ask him out, but always gets nervous and breathless during her attempts. Until one day she gathers her courage and almost succeeds before she is suddenly choking.
She rushes to the washroom and eventually spits out a petal. Cruella has contracted the dreaded Hanahaki disease, a symbol of unrequited love. She is devastated, and runs back home.
However, where most other girls might become depressed and wither their lives away for love, Cruella is a strong woman determined to be in control of her own life. She makes the decision instead to go for the operation, which will remove the flowers from within her, but also remove her ability to love.
Her crush eventually gets to know of her condition (they were still friends remember) and although he doesn't love her romantically, he is still concerned for her well-being. He visits her in the hospital while she was still in induced coma for her operation and gifts her his fur coat (because she seemed always interested in it, not knowing she only liked it because of him).
Cruella wakes up after the successful operation and she is no longer capable of caring for others, much less loving. But when she sees the fur coat she feels an affinity and thinks that she might want to collect more.
Now isn't that the perfect lead up to the 101 Dalmatians? LOL
Preface: I AM NOT DEFENDING GAN NING HOLY FUCKING SHIT SHUT THE FUCK UP THIS ISN’T A DEFENSE OF HIM BUT A RECTIFICATION OF ERRORS AND A REDIRECTION OF ANGER TO THE MORE DESERVED AMONG HIS PEERS I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD IF SOMEONE SAYS I AM DEFENDING HIM I WILL POST A GOD DAMN FROWNY FACE AND YOU’LL FEEL BAD
Honestly I was going to make this longer but I feel weird writing it, so here you go. We were all wrong about a crucial thing btw.
Gān Níng 甘寧 is quite the controversial figure with a brutal streak that is known to all. Everyone is familiar with the Sānguózhì 三國志 and it’s rather infamous opening paragraph on Níng, as well as the Wúshū 吳書
When young he had vitality and strength, enjoyed traveling as an adventurer, recruiting and gathering reckless youths, became their chief commander; the gathering with him followed, wielding bows and crossbows, carrying feather banners and girdling bells, the people hearing the bell sounds, then at once knew it was Níng. (2) People that with him encountered, even subordinates of the city’s chief clerk, if they received him with grandeur and generosity then he with them had good relations, and if not, then he would unleash those he commanded to steal their goods and money, in the chief clerk’s jurisdiction robbed and harmed, acting uncontrollably, reaching to over twenty years.
Wúshū states: Níng recklessly adventured and killed people, living in hiding and fleeing in exile, and was heard throughout the prefecture. His going out and in, on march then he lined up chariots and cavalry, on water then he linked light boats, his attendant followers wore embroidery, as if lightening the roads, when stopping he always with silk brocade fastened boat, leaving he might cut it and abandon it, to show his extravagance.
He comes off as as terrible human being here, however there are first two things to address. In the previous translation of Níng’s SGZ the Wúshū annotation was mistranslated. Those responsible mistook 亡命 flee and hide for murder, making Níng come across far worse than he was. Níng did not hide in homes to kill people and this is a very common idea that has been bandied around for years. In fact it wasn’t until today that this was caught. A large portion of the negative view on him stems from this very story. The previous translation provided this image of a malicious coward who would deceive people, hide in their homes and murder them. Níng’s personality was one who wore bells so all would know he was approaching. He clearly thought very highly of himself. As some extra salt in the wound I am sure you are now realizing how stupid you were for thinking a man famous for wearing bells would be hiding in homes. I know I certainly feel fucking dumb for that.
The second thing to address which is often skipped over comes at the end of this paragraph is that Chén Shòu 陳壽 made an effort to point out that Níng wanted to reform. He ceased his brutal ways and went to try and take up office, as well as devote his time to his studies.
When he stopped and did not attack and plunder, he inclined to reading the various masters, and so went to join Liú Biǎo, and therefore resided at Nányáng, did not meet with advancement or use, later transferred to Huáng Zǔ, and Zǔ also as to a ordinary person treated him.
However that reformation didn’t stick. Well.. it did, except for one moment. One very infamous moment that comes later in life when he is under the employ of the first sovereign of Wú 吳 Sūn Quán 孫權. It is a story so famous that when he is brought up it will inevitably be close behind him and that is the account of the murder of the kitchen servant
Níng’s kitchen servant once had a fault, and fled to Lǚ Méng. Méng feared Níng would kill him, and therefore did not at once return him. Later Níng presented gifts to pay respects to Méng’s mother, acting as if [to his own mother] ascending hall, and so [Lǚ Méng] produced the kitchen servant to return to Níng. Níng promised Méng to not kill. After returning to his boat, he bound [the servant] to a mulberry tree, and personally drew bow to shoot and kill him. When finished, he ordered the boat people to again increase the barge moors, untied his clothes and lied in the boat. Méng was greatly furious, and struck drums to gather his troops, wishing to go to the boat to attack Níng. Níng heard this, and therefore lied down and did not rise. Méng’s mother barefooted went out to remonstrate Méng and said: “The utmost honored treats you like bone and flesh [kin], entrusts you with great affairs, how can you for personal angers yet wish to attack and kill Gān Níng? On Níng’s death day, even if the utmost honored does not investigate, you would be a servant that violated law.” Méng by nature was utmostly filial, heard his mother’s words, and immediately his thinking was resolved, he personally went to Níng’s boat, laughed and called to him saying: “Xīngbà, my mother is treating you to food, quickly come up!” Níng shedding tears sobbed and said: “[I] disappointed you.” He with Méng together returned to meet the mother, feasting all day.
The previous translation calls this a young boy as the character 兒 is present, which often means child. However it can also mean small, as in low ranking. Therefor saying this was definitely a boy and not a low ranking servant is difficult. So with the age of the victim in doubt we come to the promise; an often pointed to reason as to why one condemns Níng. He swore to his friend he would do no harm, and yet he did. How can he be forgiven? ..And yet he was. Níng feasted with Méng and his mother all day long. If Méng didn’t care in the end, why should you? Well Méng isn’t exactly adverse to killing. He killed a man over a slight once before,
At the time [Dèng] Dāng’s appointed official because Méng was young thought light of him, and said: “What can this little brat do? This is like giving meat to feed a tiger and that is all.” On another day he met with Méng, and again insulted him. Méng was greatly furious, drew his sword and killed the official, went out and fled, escaping to fellow village man Zhèng Zhǎng’s house. He went out to Colonel Yuán Xióng to turn himself in, who took opportunity to tell of it, [Sūn] Cè summoned and met and was impressed with him, and appointed him to his attendants.
Ah, you say, but he turned himself in! He is innocent! Or he knew he was wrong! Perhaps. But that doesn’t change the fact that he still wined and dined with the man who lied and killed. Therefor there was no care in the end.
The third point is the most rock solid. The killing itself. He tied a boy to a tree and shot him. This was malice. Chén Shòu made sure to let us know that Níng derived pleasure from killing and that makes sense when one reads this anecdote. If he simply wanted the servant dead then he would’ve just stabbed him. Instead he chose the way that left the servant helpless and with him in total control. What is worse than this?
What about murdering your allies? Whether it be over the most minor incident like a difference in soldiers, or perhaps over wealth? What if you do this for years at a time? What about trying to murder an ally for something they did before they joined you?
Are you aware of the stories of Zhū Huán 朱桓, Pān Zhāng 潘璋 and Líng Tǒng 淩統? What about Diǎn Wéi 典韋 and Xú Shù 徐庶?
Zhū Huán committed a great killing of his allies after a perceived slight when they were given command over a larger swath of soldiers. He faced no punishment for this act and pleaded insanity. Pān Zhāng would, for many years, kill his allies and steal their wealth. There was no attempt to reform. He killed those he fought beside and he died a wealthy man! Diǎn Wéi and Xú Shù similarly both killed for wealth, serving as hired killers.
Then of course there is Líng Tǒng who at one point murdered a man who drunkly besmirched his father and rather than turn himself in he attempted to take his life through battle, yet he failed. As a result Sūn Quán employed him further! Speaking of Tǒng’s father…
Chén Shòu makes sure to let us know that Níng reformed, put himself toward scholarly pursuits and so naturally he was drawn to the court of Liú Biǎo 劉表 who famously had been surrounded by some of the finest literati in the Empire. It makes total sense as to why Níng would go to him, yet Biǎo only cared for the high class and didn’t bother with him. He was shipped east to meet the senile Huáng Zǔ 黃祖 who as well didn’t value him, and yet that did not stop Níng from saving his life when in danger. Líng Tǒng’s father Cāo 凌操 personally lead an assault on Zǔ but Níng intercepted him, and during the conflict Cāo was hit by an arrow and died. Níng did his duty as a subordinate for a master who cared not for him, and in the end he would defect to the very side of Cāo’s son where Tǒng would forever bare a grudge against him. On several occasions Tǒng expressed a desire to kill him, even going so far as to pick up a sword and try, only to be stopped by Lǚ Méng.
Tell me, why is it okay for someone to attempt to murder an ally who committed a loyal act while serving a prior lord? Tǒng in his action was no better than Zhū Huán and yet he meets no condemnation. In fact it is often excused because Níng was a bad person! The only thing saving Níng was the interference of a friend. For further condemnation of Tǒng you can site his inclusion in the massacre of Xiàkǒu 夏口! Tǒng wasn’t some innocent child. He was a man with a vicious temper and innocent blood on his hands.
If Níng is condemned for these acts, why not those were equal or worse? It is rather hypocritical. Níng was a bad human being and deserves condemnation for his acts as a bandit and absolutely for what occurred with the servant, however when one calls him the worst of Wú or, even more insane, the worst of the era it is quite frankly misplaced. I didn’t even need to invoke the obvious worse examples of Cáo Cāo 曹操 and Sīmǎ Yì 司馬懿 whose killing and deciet was far grander than anything Níng could ever muster. What of Sūn Quán who tolerated many of those listed here, including Níng? It is recorded that the crimes commited under him were so frequent that he had to instill a three strike rule! Why is Níng the only object of your condemnation? Stop the scapegoating and target your outrage at others who deserve it too. Gān Níng is, without question, an evil man but he was not alone. Particularly not in his faction.
I'm not going to tackle everything about Gan Ning here, just jumping on some points to talk about Lv Meng (lol of course, he's my favourite).
So Gan Ning's main issue isn't really his viciousness, at least not unless you are talking about some holier-than-thou fans (come on it's war, being a killer is the most basic requirement). It is that for all his book knowledge, he really isn't smart. In other words, Gan Ning has really low EQ.
Consider this: after making a big name as a ruffian and a feared leader of a gang, he reformed and chose to serve Liu Biao. Instead of being respected and revered, he was reviled and discarded. This is despite him being really quite a tactician (as can be seen when he offered his opinions in Wu).
After coming into Wu, he had managed to offend people so many times that:
1. Nobody offered to save him when he was routed, until Lv Meng spoke up.
2. Sun Quan contemplated killing him multiple times, only to be dissuaded.
3. Hell, even Lv Meng wanted to kill him that one time.
Gan Ning has like literally no people skills. He is that redneck that everyone cheers on when he rushes into things, but no one really cares about if he ends up in trouble. And because of this brash and loud-mouthed personality, his faults get amplified and no one bothers to remember his good points. It comes to the point that Gan Ning being a good killer is the reason why he is kept around (to kill the enemy), and not because they see any other value in him.
Now let's compare to two others who are notably Sun Quan's favourites, despite also being murderers. Firstly, there is Lin Tong, who rushed into the killing in the heat of the moment, then rushed to absolve himself by trying for death in battle.
Is he wrong for killing? Yes! But people have always been more forgiving towards crimes of passion (Lin Tong killed for his father's perceived honour), and the naivety displayed by Lin Tong in the aftermath is equal parts hilarious and endearing. It is like the student who cheated in the exam and felt so bad about it that they chose to fail another exam to compensate.
Compare that to how Gan Ning responded after he murdered his servant, almost gloating and with no signs of regret. Here you can see in sharp relief why people would be more uncomfortable with Gan Ning as compared to Lin Tong.
And how about Lv Meng? Well, Lv Meng is different from Gan Ning because he is smart. Let me clarify a point: Lv Meng did surrender himself eventually for his murder, but no where did it say he was remorseful or regretted the act. More importantly, what was the net consequence of the murder? The poor guy died without him or his family getting any recompense, and Lv Meng got promoted. Instead of punishment, Lv Meng smartly got people to speak on his behalf so that he benefited from the fallout.
It is this smartness which makes Lv Meng appealing, and lets people gloss over his faults. Multiple times Lv Meng has shown equal or even more overt deviousness than Gan Ning, but Lv Meng is so much more affable in the way he frames things that it is hard to really dislike him.
So let us consider the point of Gan Ning's servant. The servant made an error, and ran to seek refuge under Lv Meng. Gan Ning found the servant, and Lv Meng returned the servant but only with Gan Ning's word that the servant won't be killed. Gan Ning however goes back on his word and kills the servant, which infuriates Lv Meng so much that he almost kills Gan Ning. Finally Lv Meng's mother brings out Sun Quan's name to calm Lv Meng down, after which Gan Ning apologizes and they make amends.
Plenty of people point to this anecdote to show Gan Ning's viciousness and Lv Meng's mercy, which shows that it is very easy to miss the point. It may sound flippant, but the servant's life doesn't matter at all. What matters is what Lv Meng's mother said, and what Gan Ning apologizes for at the end.
Lv Meng's mother does not tell Lv Meng that it is wrong to kill someone. Nor does she defend Gan Ning at all. Instead, she brings up something else altogether: Gan Ning's usefulness to Sun Quan. She explicitly states that even should Sun Quan forgive Lv Meng for it, Lv Meng is still doing his lord a disservice by killing Gan Ning.
That is what convinces Lv Meng to let off Gan Ning. Indeed Lv Meng himself often uses that exact same argument to convince Sun Quan to keep Gan Ning around. Both Lv Meng and his mother sees Gan Ning as a tool, a means to an end, so it is useless to get upset with him. It isn't mercy which made Lv Meng spare Gan Ning, it is practicality.
And right at the end, Gan Ning apologizes to Lv Meng: I've betrayed your confidence. This is an apology that Lv Meng accepts, and the incident is over and done with, the murder swept under the carpet. So obviously the murder of the servant isn't really that much of an outrage. What triggered Lv Meng's anger than?
It was Gan Ning's word, which was broken, and in turn caused Lv Meng to break his own word. In Chinese we have a saying that a man's word is worth nine cauldrons 一言九鼎. To go back on your word is to be without honour, something most righteous (or self-righteous) people feel very strongly about.
Recall that Lv Meng once murdered someone because he belittled Lv Meng, hurting his pride. Likewise this anger against Gan Ning is not so much about the servant who died, but that Lv Meng was made a fool of when he trusted Gan Ning to not kill the servant. Lv Meng has promised the servant refuge and failed, and he wanted revenge on Gan Ning as a result.
That is why the apology by Gan Ning did appease Lv Meng, to an extent. Gan Ning showed he was truly remorseful for betraying his word, and Lv Meng's pride was assauged. And the servant was completely forgotten about.
Trying to find a nice guy in the three kingdoms period is like trying to find the least sinful person in hell. These people survived long enough in a war-stricken period to have their names recorded down for a reason, and niceness is not it. Sure not all are murderers, but no one is a saint. So it is really pointless to be throwing shade on other people in Wu to try to get people to stop targeting Gan Ning. (Hint: they won't)
Instead, perhaps you can find some interesting or cool things about Gan Ning to mitigate his worst deeds. That might work far better.
Evangelion 3.0 + 1.0 came out two months ago, and Kawoshin is officially not canon. And as a Kawoshin shipper, that is completely okay. I still think that Asuka is toxic, and Shinji is bi, and Kaworu and Shinji are soul mates.
But guess what? I don't need Kawoshin to be canon. I don't even need them to be romantically attracted to each other. I just like that Shinji has his safe space in Kaworu whenever he needed him.
I think more shippers need to be rational in their shipping, stop posing their version of fanon as canon, and stop terrorising everyone who disagrees with them.
So what brought this sudden epiphany was that I was browsing reddit and came across a certain impassioned defense of a ship that, unfortunately, was not canon. However, the shippers decided that somehow they were morally entitled to get their ship recognised by canon, and so took actions to terrorise all the creators and people associated with the fandom until they got what they wanted. (which they ended up not getting. Lol.)
The reddit post was extremely one-sided, very obviously biased, and the reddit comments majority formed an echo chamber to affirm the poster that yes, the creators were queer-baiting, everyone could see the blatant subtext, the cancelling of the ship was homophobic.
Now I've seen ship wars across many fandoms, and I've noticed the rising trend of making use of LGBT signalling to try to force creators into making queer ships canon despite there being no canon support for it. This is especially ironic when large parts of these shippers tend to be young heterosexual females who love the idea of two men in a sexual relationship, despite themselves not really being invested enough in the individual characters to like any of their canon ships.
Just to make things clear, I have nothing against fujoshi. Hell I can probably be considered one myself, as I do ship multiple gay pairings (not as many as het pairings, but definitely a non-zero number). What I do dislike in shippers is the insistence on their ship being the OTP for the fandom, and if their fanon is contradicted by canon, then it is the canon which is at fault.
The fact is, at the end of the day, canon is the basis of the fandom. All other fanons and headcannons sprout from canon, but they are derivatives, and not the original. No one is stopping you from having your version of the story, but repeated insistence and tantrums will not make your version the correct version.
I'm not going to delve into every problematic popular queer fanon ship that shippers tried to make canon here, but suffice to say that there is one similarity I see in majority of them - they tend not to be healthy relationships. Because there is usually a reason the ships were not canon in the first place, but the shippers just refuse to acknowledge it.
Be it because the character(s) in canon are heterosexual (which shippers love to insert gaynst in to symbolize their 'awakening'), perhaps even married (which is totally okay because their wives are beards and the characters are assholes), not really that close to each other (but they are totally in love secretly), enemies (which is apparently just foreplay for foe-yay), or even plain rejected each other (because it is totally fine to have non-consensual relations and it is romantic).
Look, I'm not saying stop shipping altogether. I'm saying stop pushing your version of fanon subtext as the one truth because it irritates the hell out of people and paints a bad picture of your ship (or even your whole fandom).
Plenty of the troublemakers originated here in tumblr. Not sure if any of them will see it, but just needed to get this off my chest.
Oh yes, and Kawoshin is still love. Maybe platonic love or agape love or one-sided love, but still canonically love. And that is good enough for me.
I agree with what you are trying to say, but I think in the context of kawoshin it doesn't work that well considering that Khara has been making suggestive and sometimes in your face merch of these two seeming to have an attraction towards each other. Other than that they made posters, in game dialouges and similar things that pushed the agenda of them possibly being a thing. However, when the time came for them to actually fulfill their 20+ years old promises, they said “nah” and did a 360 on the whole thing. It is a prime example of queerbaiting. From that perspective the outrage is understandable. Although, I agree with the notion that nobody should threaten anyone for anything ever, especially if it comes to shipping. If they could have expressed their disappointment in a more calm manner then I would say it is alright (sadly this almost never happens, especially on this website).
( Since this part feels a little bit out of context of kawoshin, I will keep it like that as well. )
On the whole toxic fandom practices, yes they are usually more common than one might think.The problem with shipping culture itself is that many want their fantasies to be reality, even when it may not have any real canon possibility to come true. Shipping itself is a lot of fun. You can play around with “what if” scenarios to your heart’s content and make the impossible become reality by using your imagination. I have a few crackships as well that I know will never become a thing but I love the appeal of playing around with them. Of course, here comes the problem as you’ve mentioned with wanting it to be the “one true pairing” of the whole fandom and having petty fights over it. In my opinion, you can ship whatever you want but just be respectful towards others and the creators, never say things like “my ship is so much better than yours” or “the creators don’t know what they are doing this is the way it should have happened”. As a side note, people tend to forget that bisexual people exist so the whole argument of this character was turned from heterosexual to gay due to them “awekaning” their sexuality is pointless if anyone realised some people are bi.
Now everything said about that, in the context of kawoshin, I would say the top part with queerbaiting explains it.
This comment turned out to be longer than I thought so sorry for that.
This was written without any malice, just wanted to share my thoughts. :)
Have a nice day!
As mentioned later on, I did the post because a reddit post about another fandom was extremely venemous towards the creators + the rest of the fandom because its queer ship was not made canon. It reminded me of Kawoshin because this was a ship I did follow, which experienced similar backlash (though thankfully fellow Kawoshin shippers were less violently inclined).
The thing about merchandise is that it can be official, but still non-canon. Merchandise is made to sell the fandom as a whole, it should not be surprising that they would choose the most appealing ship to attract buyers. Likewise side-games are just that - side stories not to be taken as canon. To then take these non-canon sources to pressure the creators to make Kawoshin canon would therefore be less than reasonable.
That's not to say that I don't want Kawoshin to be canon. It, in my opinion, is the best and most appropriate ship for Shinji, one that is healthy and most likely to lead to growth on both parties. But if we just go by canon, the evidence for Kawoshin is no more than any of Shinji's other ships. Therefore the creators should have the right to tell the story they want to tell, and not just give into fan pressure to appease just one valid ship out of multiple valid ships.
The issue of queer-baiting seems to be a problematic one in Western circles, but is actually quite the norm in Asian circles. We even have a specific term 卖腐 that queer-baiting is almost expected for any fandom with bishies in them. So while I do understand the outrage some Western fans have, with us Asians we expect that (unless the work is specifically tagged and sold as BL/GL) the queer ship is meant to go nowhere. It is just there for fanservice, for moe moments that fujoshis can squee over, and is almost always in the end meant to be platonic.
So although I do empathise with the shippers' disappointment, I hope that they can take a step back and realise that their ship being made canon is really non-essential to the central story. Like I mentioned in my original post, Kawoshin being confirmed as non-romantic does not destroy their connection in my eyes. It is, perhaps, even more precious that a platonic relationship can be deep enough to have affected both of them as it had in canon, yet not require sexual relations to bind them together.
It is easy for two people to become close if they share a romance. However if two people are naturally drawn together even without a romance, I think their bond is even more special and enduring.
Evangelion 3.0 + 1.0 came out two months ago, and Kawoshin is officially not canon. And as a Kawoshin shipper, that is completely okay. I still think that Asuka is toxic, and Shinji is bi, and Kaworu and Shinji are soul mates.
But guess what? I don't need Kawoshin to be canon. I don't even need them to be romantically attracted to each other. I just like that Shinji has his safe space in Kaworu whenever he needed him.
I think more shippers need to be rational in their shipping, stop posing their version of fanon as canon, and stop terrorising everyone who disagrees with them.
So what brought this sudden epiphany was that I was browsing reddit and came across a certain impassioned defense of a ship that, unfortunately, was not canon. However, the shippers decided that somehow they were morally entitled to get their ship recognised by canon, and so took actions to terrorise all the creators and people associated with the fandom until they got what they wanted. (which they ended up not getting. Lol.)
The reddit post was extremely one-sided, very obviously biased, and the reddit comments majority formed an echo chamber to affirm the poster that yes, the creators were queer-baiting, everyone could see the blatant subtext, the cancelling of the ship was homophobic.
Now I've seen ship wars across many fandoms, and I've noticed the rising trend of making use of LGBT signalling to try to force creators into making queer ships canon despite there being no canon support for it. This is especially ironic when large parts of these shippers tend to be young heterosexual females who love the idea of two men in a sexual relationship, despite themselves not really being invested enough in the individual characters to like any of their canon ships.
Just to make things clear, I have nothing against fujoshi. Hell I can probably be considered one myself, as I do ship multiple gay pairings (not as many as het pairings, but definitely a non-zero number). What I do dislike in shippers is the insistence on their ship being the OTP for the fandom, and if their fanon is contradicted by canon, then it is the canon which is at fault.
The fact is, at the end of the day, canon is the basis of the fandom. All other fanons and headcannons sprout from canon, but they are derivatives, and not the original. No one is stopping you from having your version of the story, but repeated insistence and tantrums will not make your version the correct version.
I'm not going to delve into every problematic popular queer fanon ship that shippers tried to make canon here, but suffice to say that there is one similarity I see in majority of them - they tend not to be healthy relationships. Because there is usually a reason the ships were not canon in the first place, but the shippers just refuse to acknowledge it.
Be it because the character(s) in canon are heterosexual (which shippers love to insert gaynst in to symbolize their 'awakening'), perhaps even married (which is totally okay because their wives are beards and the characters are assholes), not really that close to each other (but they are totally in love secretly), enemies (which is apparently just foreplay for foe-yay), or even plain rejected each other (because it is totally fine to have non-consensual relations and it is romantic).
Look, I'm not saying stop shipping altogether. I'm saying stop pushing your version of fanon subtext as the one truth because it irritates the hell out of people and paints a bad picture of your ship (or even your whole fandom).
Plenty of the troublemakers originated here in tumblr. Not sure if any of them will see it, but just needed to get this off my chest.
Oh yes, and Kawoshin is still love. Maybe platonic love or agape love or one-sided love, but still canonically love. And that is good enough for me.
It is made clear that the ruler of the Woodland Realm was never in possession of a Ring of Power (even Cirdan of the Grey Havens held one, for a time). Yet of all the elven kingdoms of the third age, Mirkwood is the place which appears the most overtly magical.
Yup, it's headcannon time.
We know that Celebrimbor forged the rings during the second age and gave them to Gilgalad, Galadriel and in some drafts directly to Cirdan. It was only at Gilgalad's death that Vilya passed to Elrond.
From the attitude Oropher held towards the Noldor, it is to be expected that he would not be given a ring. And though Thranduil seemed less distrustful, I doubt any of the three felt close enough to him to wish to personally entrust their ring to him.
However, the Woodland Realm is a large elven kingdom that is remarkably close to Mordor. Leaving it unprotected would seem like great folly, especially when the Shadow rose and corrupted it from Greenwood into Mirkwood.
There must be something about Thranduil's rule which assured the rest of the Wise that he could hold his own, should the kingdom be under attack. And that is where magic comes in.
Tolkien's description of magic is very vague. Sure the Valar and Maia have powers, and so do magic rings embued with power. But other than that, most magical happenings go unexplained.
What is interesting is that overt magic in Rivendell (water horses and healing powers) and Lothlorien (stasis of the passage of time and preserving beauty) are explained through the presence of a ringbearer. But not the overt magic in Mirkwood, where the river is enchanted, bonfires can lead to hallucinations and doors are magical.
This leads me to think that Thranduil has powers, magical powers that are strong enough in and of itself to be a deterrent to enemies. It might not be as potent as a ring of power, but it is enough to protect his kingdom despite not being a ringbearer or being a light elf.
And I can't help but think that this has something to do with Thranduil growing up in Doriath under the guidance of Melian.
Oropher was noted to be a Sindarin Prince, and whether or not he was directly related to Thingol (a headcannon I'll leave for another post), he must surely be of high enough standing to occasionally get to meet the Maia Queen. It is during one of this meetings he decides to bring along his young son, and the blond elfling just charms Melian.
Perhaps the golden strands of his hair signified Vanyar blood, or reminded her of the golden tree. Whatever it is, Melian decides that this boy is talented, and she wants to tutor him.
Thingol too takes a liking to Thranduil, somehow seeing a lot of himself in the elfling. Oropher is delighted that his son has made an impression on his king and queen, and offers to bring him to the palace regularly.
And so it is, directly under the Maia Queen herself, that Thranduil learns his magic. He learns enchantments to repel and to protect, he learns the languages of the birds and is able to converse with them. He becomes more attuned to nature and the seasons, and finds himself as one with the forest.
Thingol occasionally drops in to their study sessions and speaks of Menegroth and trade with surrounding kingdoms and the day-to-day business of ruling. Thranduil is young enough to be just like a sponge and he absorbs all these knowledge, not really knowing what he will do with it but keeping it in his memory anyway.
And, after the fall of Doriath, the disappearance of Beleriand, the founding of the Woodland Realm and the death of his father, Thranduil recalls those lessons from long ago. He puts them into use and cannot help but think to himself, maybe Melian did see something in him after all.
There was this beautiful MV on bilibili link here that had a scene where Sun Quan and Lv Meng went out by themselves on horses to hunt tigers. And then they got caught by Zhang Zhao when they came back.
Sun Quan was all smiles trying to pass it off as nothing, but Zhang Zhao was having none of it. And Lv Meng stood silently at the side trying to blend into the background. I can just imagine Zhang Zhao sighing "Ziming when I entrusted our lord's safety with you I meant stopping him, not protecting him while going along with it..."
If there is one incident I would point out as the most incongruent to Lv Meng's life story, it would be the fact that it was Zhang Zhao who recommended Lv Meng to take over when Deng Dang (his brother-in-law) died.
Zhang Zhao, who is famous for being stern and strict on propriety, who did not look favourably on ruffians and warriors, who made his disdain for someone as learned as Lu Su obvious. Yet somehow, he saw something in Lv Meng which made him look kindly upon the boy.
My personal headcannon is that Zhang Zhao's stuck-in-the-mud ways made it very difficult for him to find someone willing to listen to him preach. Even Sun Ce often used to act busy to get out of listening to Zhang Zhao's lectures.
Lv Meng, being the smart Alec he is, knows that Sun Ce views Zhang Zhao with high esteem. So in a bid to curry favour, he goes to Zhang Zhao with a sob story of being forced to fight despite his young age and how he never had the opportunity to go to school.
Zhang Zhao is overcome with sympathy for this poor young boy and takes him under his wing, teaching him about anything and everything (which Lv Meng manfully tries to pretend he finds interesting). Due to his close relationship with Zhang Zhao, Lv Meng gets to skip on menial labours ('he is coming with me for his lessons'), is given extra rations ('you must eat more as a growing boy') and all sorts of other small favours.
When Deng Dang passes away, plenty of other officers fight to gain control of his troops. But Zhang Zhao goes straight to Sun Ce, declaring that it is only proper that Lv Meng takes over from Deng Dang, and threatens to go into a long speech to explain exactly why. Sun Ce defers to Zhang Zhao's wisdom, and Lv Meng finally gets his own troops to command.
Years pass. Although Lv Meng has grown from footsoldier into Grand Commander, Zhang Zhao still sees him as that little boy who came to him for stories about morals and ethics. He calls Lv Meng to join him for dinner often, and though the latter is often too busy to make it, every once in a while they do manage a meal or two.
"Ziming" Zhang Zhao calls him, one of the few people who do. Perhaps it was even Zhang Zhao himself who originally gave Lv Meng that style name, since Lv Meng's father had passed on long before the chance came. He would nag for Lv Meng to take better care of himself, share knowledge from the latest books he had come across, and ask Lv Meng for anecdotes from his travels across the country. And Lv Meng would humour him, not only because Zhang Zhao remains an important advisor to Sun Quan, but also because over the course of 20+ years he had come to view this elderly man as a father figure of sorts.
At the end of the meal, Zhang Zhao would once again entrust the safety of his Lord Sun Quan into Lv Meng's hands. He knew that this young boy, whom he had watched grow up, would be up for the task.
The thing about Yusaku and Toichi being friends and rivals (and Toichi once mentoring Yukiko) is that it strikes me as extremely strange that Toichi's 'accident' should be left uninvestigated for so long.
Which leads me to my headcannon:
The Kudous and Kurobas are family friends due to Toichi and Yukiko's mentor-student relationship. They are close enough for their toddler sons to play together, but not so close as to know everything about each other.
When Toichi's accident first occurred, Chikage's first instinct was to leave Kaito with the Kudous while she investigated what happened. But when she got hold of Jii who told her what had happened, Chikage reconsidered her position.
Toichi was a phantom thief, as was Chikage herself. Although this is history now (Toichi being dead and Chikage having retired), it would still reflect badly on the family and may even affect Kaito's future. So she definitely did not want police involvement in the investigation.
Yusaku, however, is not actually law enforcement himself. If he could be persuaded to help... But no, the Kudous had a young son too. Chikage has no idea how dangerous Snake might be, and she doesn't think it would be right to involve them in such danger.
Chikage was determined to revenge Toichi's murder, but it needed to be done without involving the Kudous. And the only way to do so without the nosy Yusaku (and even curious Shinichi) budging in would be to leave. So that is what she did.
Chikage took Kaito and left without notifying the Kudous. Being a former phantom thief, she did have some way of hiding her traces. And Yusaku, faced with a friend's sudden death and their family disappearing naturally tried to investigate. However as Toichi's death officially was regarded as an accident, the crime scene was not protected and any evidence quickly became contaminated.
Chikage's disappearance was also regarded as taking a break to mourn her husband's death, and by the time neighbours discovered otherwise the trail had gone cold. Combined with the fact that he had his family and his editors waiting on him, Yusaku had no choice but to let go.
A couple of years passed. By themselves, Chikage and Jii had not made much headway into tracking Snake. Finally, Jii suggests himself dressing up as Kaitou Kid to draw Snake out. At first, Chikage is reluctant, but the news that the Kudous are moving to America seems to be a sign. At the very least, it means there is no one else who could recognize the original Kaitou Kid, and Yusaku would not be alerted to their presence. Unlike Toichi, who was always very confident in his skills, Jii was way more careful, and each heist was meticulously planned before execution. Thus there were long intervals between heists to ensure all safety precautions have been taken, and the search for Snake remained slow and arduous. But Chikage didn’t give up.
Unlike his parents, Shinichi remained in Japan. As Shinichi grew up, he can vaguely remember an uncle Toichi, auntie Chi-chan and a childhood friend Kai-chan. But he never connects it to the world famous magician Kuroba Toichi because they had always felt more like family friends who came over occasionally to play with him. He had assumed they moved away (as some family friends do) and he never connected it with the magician’s accident (which felt like some important thing which affected lots of people and couldn’t possibly have anything to do with funny uncle Toichi who always tickled him too much).
However, the clock tower heist drew his attention to the mystery of Kaitou Kid. A little research had revealed his father had been investigating Kaitou Kid’s thefts and was even responsible for naming the thief. As such, Shinichi became even more determined to catch the phantom thief, but without telling his father about it, so that he can at last prove himself better.
As for Kaito, he does remember the Kudous somewhat fondly as an interesting family (what a pretty old lady!), but is aware that Chikage is keeping away from them. Although curious, he doesn’t pry out of respect for his mother. It is only after his discovery of Kaitou Kid’s lair that he connects the dots. Thus he actually actively tries to keep away from Beika and Shinichi Kudou, to prevent his identity from being found out. It was not until the clock tower heist that Shinichi accidentally happens upon the thief. And Shinichi’s sudden disappearance, although intriguing Kaito, was actually a relief as well.
That is, until he meets Conan. In the queerest case of deja vu, he has the feeling of meeting Shinichi all over again, not only because they knew each other from before, but because seeing Conan is like seeing Shinichi back at the age when they knew each other as childhood friends. In fact seeing Shinichi as a 17 year old would have taken Kaito longer (by a few seconds) to recognize him then seeing Shinichi as Conan did. But of course, Conan does not recognize him in return.
Kaito assumes that the age shrinking has something to do with magic (maybe Shinichi attracted the unwanted attentions of another witch like Akako) and thus just treats Conan like a long-lost friend and rival. He doesn’t ever really endanger Conan during heists (hell the tazer felt reasonable as he knew Shinichi was really 17 and didn’t think that size mattered), and helps Conan out of tight situations. Even more so than with his Kaitou Kid taskforce, Kaito treats the matching of wits with Conan like a game, precisely because he knows who Conan actually is. Just like the way they played together when young.
It is just as well that Chikage has never met Conan and doesn’t know who he actually is, or else I bet she’ll be furious that after all that hiding and moving away, dear little Shin-chan still got involved in the Kaitou Kid mess.
I’ve seen a fair number of takes in the Silm fandom on the topic of either “the Noldor are horrible imperialists” or “the Sindar are horrible isolationists”, so I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at Doriathrin policy.
Firstly, how isolationist are they, following the creation of the Girdle of Melian? They still have close relations with the Laiquendi of Ossiriand, and some of them come to Doriath. They still have close relations with Círdan and are in communication with him. They’re fairly close with the children of Finarfin: Galadriel lives in Doriath, the others visit, Finrod is close enough with Thingol to act as an intermediary between him and the Haladin, and Thingol is the one who tells Finrod of the location for Nargothrond. The dwarves continue travelling to Doriath, and trading, and living there for long periods to do commissioned craft-work, through long periods of the First Age, even after the Nirnaeth - the Nauglamír Incident could never have happened if not for that. All these people can pass freely into Doriath. So we’re not talking about Doriath cutting itself off from the rest of the world, not by any means. We’re talking specifically about its relations with three groups: 1) the Fingolfinian and Fëanorian Noldor; 2) the Edain; and 3) the Northern Sindar.
Every time I try to write this post it gets really long, so here I’m going to focus on Doriath’s relationship with the first and third groups, other Elves, and leave the Edain for a separate post.
Doriath and the Northern Sindar
Thingol’s attitude towards this group is the least excusable, and something I wasn’t aware of until I got my hands on a copy of The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME Vol. 12):
[Thingol] had small love for the Northern Sindar who had in regions near to Angband come under the dominion of Morgoth, and were accused of sometimes entering his service and providing him with spies. The Sindarin used by the Sons of Fëanor also was of the Northern dialect; and they were hated in Doriath.
Now, to be clear, Thingol is wrong about the Northern Sindar being shifty. They’re the ones more commonly described in The Silmarillion as the grey-elves of Hithlum. They make up a substantial portion of the people of Gondolin. They include Annael and his people, who raise Tuor. (Presumably others live in, or moved to, East Beleriand along with the Fëanorians, as the Fëanorians speak their tongue.)
Here is what I think probably happened. We have statements in The Silmarillion that Morgoth captured elves when he could, and that:
“The Noldor feared most the treachery of those of their own kin, who had been thralls in Angband; for Morgoth used some of these for his evil purposes, and feigning to give them liberty sent them abroad, but their wills were chained to his, and they strayed only to com back to him again; therefore if any of his captives escaped in truth, and returned to their own people, they had little welcome, and wandered alone outlawed and desperate”.
If Morgoth also captured some of the Northern Sindar - who, living closer to Angband, would be more at risk of this than Doriathrim, Falathrim, or Laiquendi - there could, as with later Noldor prisoners, have been some who were under his control and attacked and betrayed other elves. The Doriathrin Sindar, living further from Angband, might have been unaware of their capture, conflated this with deliberate and willful treachery, and so mistrusted the Northern Sindar.
That does not excuse Thingol’s attitude. He is stereotyping, and he is claiming kingship of all Beleriand while writing off a substantial portion of his own people, and this is unacceptable. One cannot claim rule of a people while simultaneously disdaining them and forswearing respinsibility for them. It is little surprise than the Northern Sindar largely joined themselves with various groups of Noldor and would have been glad of their arrival.
Doriath and the Noldor
This case is more complicated. I don’t like conflations of Thingol’s attitude towards the Fingolfinian and Fëanorian Noldor - or the Edain, for that matter - with anti-immigration sentiment. The basic concept of immigration is that you want to go to another country and live as a member of that country. When you enter an existing realm, claim its territory as your own, set up your own government, and justify it on the basis of “you’re not militarily able to stop us” that is not immigration. That is called an invasion, or annexation, or something of the sort. (Even if the realm in question is currently under invasion by enemies! Imagine if the British, after D-Day, had tried to annex half of France.)
(I will also note here that Thingol did not abandon the rest of the people of Beleriand prior to the Noldor’s arrival. The First Battle was the Doriathrim fighting alongside the Laiquendi. When Morgoth’s invasion became too large to fight on every front, the creation of the Girdle was the right choice. When assaulted by an overwhelming enemy force, the best, and indeed only militarily possible, option may be to withdraw as many of your people as possible to your fortress (as Thingol does - many of the Laiquendi and as many as possible of the grey-elves of Western Beleriand are evacuated to Doriath) and buckle down for a siege.)
And the Noldor didn’t come with the Sindar’s benefit in mind. (As I have noted before, they were not even away of Angband’s existence. The Return was focused on fighting one very dangerous individual, regaining the Silmarils, and setting up realms in - if we’re being generous to the Noldor - presumably unoccupied territory. If we’re not being generous, the aim can equally well be read as setting themselves up as the rulers of the elves of Middle-earth. If their goal, or even a tiny part of their goal, was “rescue the Sindar”, then they could have pitched that to Olwë to get him on board - “help us rescue your brother from Morgoth” is a way stronger argument than “you owe us, you cultureless barbarians”.)
So, given that they’re annexing his territory without even considering that it might be someone else’s territory, it’s very understandable that Thingol isn’t pleased by the Noldor.
On the other hand, Beleriand does benefit from the Noldor’s presence. Maedhros is quite correct when he points out that Thingol’s alternative to having the Nolder in northern Beleriand would be having orcs there [ironically, the Fëanorians do more harm to Doriath than orcs ever do, but that’s far in the future]. So given that the Sindar and Noldor have a common and very dangerous enemy, Thingol should at least try to work wth them. His deliberate isolation from the Noldor even prior to finding out about the Kinslaying comes across as prideful and petty. I am thinking particular of the absolutely minimal Doriathrin participation in Mereth Aderthad, when Fingolfin was specifically seeking to build a Beleriand-wide alliance, something that was in all their interests; and, addtionally, of not allowing the Nolofinwëans into Doriath. It automatically precludes any high-level negotiations or, just as importantly, any amount of in-person interaction that could lead to greater understanding. I can understand Thingol’s attitude towards Mereth Aderthad on some level - Fingolfin is in effect acting as though he is High King of Beleriand, something Thingol would resent - but it is nonetheless shortsighted.
It’s also worth noting, though, that acting with more tact and treating Thingol as King of Beleriand - as in fact he was throughout the Ages of the Stars - would not necessarily have posed any great difficulty or impeded Noldoran autonomy in decision-making in northern Beleriand. Notably, Thingol is on good terms with Finrod, gives him the location for building Nargothrond, and has no problems with him setting up a realm governing a large swath of West Beleriand. And yes, being relatives doesn’t hurt, but what stands out in this relationship is that Finrod treats Thingol with respect. He understand that Thingol knows more about Beleriand than him, and asks advice; when the Edain arrive, he’s the only one of the Noldor to consult with Thingol on his decisions (and that willingness to consult is what gets Thingol to agree to the Haladin settling in Brethil). And none of this prevents Finrod, or Orodreth after him, from having autonomy from Doriath in their decisions as lords of Nargothrond.
However, another interesting point is that Thingol’s early attitude towards the Noldor is not driven only by resentment of their infringements on his authority, but also by outright mistrust that doesn’t seem to be clearly grounded. Note that, after Galadriel tells Melian about Morgoth’s slaying of Finwë and theft of the Silmarils (which is well after Mereth Aderthad), Melian and Thingol talk, and Thingol says of the Noldor, “Yet all the more sure shall they be as allies against Morgoth, with whom it is not now to be thought they shall ever make treaty.” [Emphasis mine.] Which means that prior to this, he was genuinely worried about the Noldor allying with Morgoth! To paraphase The Order of the Stick, Thingol took Improved Paranoia several levels ago. (But he always seems to be paranoid about the wrong things. The Fëanorians are a threat, but not because of any possible league with Morgoth. Likewise, he is hostile to Beren because of dreams of a Man bringing doom to Doriath, but Thingol’s death and the first destruction of Doriath is instead set off by the actions of Húrin in bringing the cursed Nauglamír.)
So on the whole, neither the Noldor nor Thingol are behaving ideally in their early relations. After Thingol learns about Alqualondë, I find his hostility - especially to the Fëanorians - very warranted. These aren’t some distant, once-related group of elves, these are his brother’s people! And “willing to betray and attack their friends” is not a quality anyone is looking for in an ally, nor something that is going to lead to trust.
This also carries over to everything relating to the Leithian and the Silmaril. (Again, it is important to note with respect to the Leithain that Thingol states outright, after giving Beren the quest that he has zero expectation of - or desire for - Beren to obtain the Silmaril. It’s a combination suicide mission and “when pigs fly” statement, and most people who say “when pigs fly” aren’t aiming at the invention of animatronic flying pigs.) In a theoretical world where the Kinslaying didn’t happen and the Fëanorians had no involvement in the Quest of the Silmaril, they might have had a good shot at negotiating for it! (A much better shot than they had at getting it out of Angband, which they never even tried.) But of course Thingol would have no interest in handing it over to the people who, on top of the Kinslaying, also 1) betrayed his nephew and sent him to his death [that’s kind of on you as well, Elu], 2) kidnapped and attempted to rape his daughter; and 3) attempted to murder his daughter. And there should not be any reasonable expectation that he ought to do so! By their actions, the Fëanorians have forfeited any right to demand anything at all from Thingol, or from Beren and Lúthien, or from their descendents.
(This is, in fact, the very point made in the Doom of Mandos: their oath shall drive them and yet betray them. Every Fëanorian action driven by the oath is counterproductive to them obtaining any of the Silmarils.)
Conclusion
In short:
- Yes, the Noldor are imperialist in their goals, but in they end they’re not ruling anyone who isn’t willing to be ruled by them. And the Northern Sindar who are part of their realms are people who Thingol had explicitly written off, which doesn’t reflect well on him.
- Doriath is not as isolationist as it is often portrayed and has close relations with many of the peoples in Beleriand. It also does participate in the wars against Morgoth (I’ll go into that in more detail in my Edain post). And they have valid grievances against the Fëanorians. However, Thingol’s deliberate snubbing of the FIngolfinian Noldor (and even before he knew about the Kinslaying), despite the evident benefits of planning a common defense of Beleriand, is selfish and petty.
I wouldn't say I agreed with everything, but there are many points that I can work with. However there is one thing I wish to highlight for discussion: isolationism.
isolationism
noun
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
I find it exceedingly peculiar that the two elven kingdoms most accused and condemned for their isolationism (Doriath and Mirkwood) are not actually actively practicing isolationism at all.
Thingol has always posed himself as King of Beleriand and had wished to be consulted on anything major occurring in the area. Likewise, Thranduil had been known to be influential in the parts around Mirkwood, so that the human settlements around all knew of him.
So why the isolationist impression?
I think this has largely to do with the point of view that the books are taking. For the Silmarillion, the major conflict is the Feanorians warring against Morgoth. However, after the early confrontations with Angband, Doriath than chose to completely remove itself from this main conflict due to the kinslaying.
Regardless of whether one agreed with this decision, one could see how this action would seem to be isolationist. However, there are two points to note:
1. Doriath's withdrawal is due to the Feanorians conflating the war against Morgoth and their personal vendetta. Considering what occurred at Aqualonde, it is understandable that Thingol did not wish to participate.
2. Despite no longer actively fighting against Morgoth, Doriath did become a safe haven for many who took refuge there, even Noldor like Galadriel. They may not have helped as much as they could, but it would be wrong to say they did not help at all.
As for Mirkwood, it seems to be even more misunderstood. Oropher wished for his kingdom to be away from the influence of two very specific peoples: the remnant Noldor in Middle-earth and the dwarves. And we can trace this wish directly to the fall of Doriath, for it was the dwarves of Nogrod and the Feanorians who sacked Doriath after Melian left.
Sure, Oropher should have noted that the dwarves of Nogrod were different to others of their kin, and not extended his dislike to dwarves as a whole race. But not wishing to work with two particular peoples is very different from isolationism as a country policy.
Indeed under Thranduil the Woodland Realm is the elven kingdom which most actively involved itself with the affairs of Middle-earth. Thranduil regularly conducted trade with nearby kingdoms, provided aid to Men when requested (and sometimes when not) and was always vigilant against the threat of Mordor.
Instead of isolationist, I think these kingdoms were more so conservative and wary. And with the knowledge of the conflicts that preceeded, it may be that their wariness was not unfounded.
