nate-fraust

[nate-fraust]

From my perspective, it's not about changing the minds of the masses so much as it's about reaching the few who may be willing to listen. You may lose 99 out of a hundred, but the one is who you're there for.

And regarding the prospect of violent persecution and even death, remember: you are in the world, but you're not of the world. The world does not and will not understand you, and so it will hate you, but it cannot kill you. Don't be so afraid of suffering in the flesh for the sake of the Good News.

At this point, Christians should just shake the dust of their feet at these blue cities and states. Get the hint. We aren't welcome. It's only a matter of time before things get violent and the politicians support the murderers.

The truly religious are actually the only group I understand staying in blue states. Missionary work has always played a large part in most Christian denominations, and I can sympathize with the urge to preach where it's most needed.

[nate-fraust]

Tbf, it could go either way when applied to the correct groups/eras.

But yes, nowadays, this is 100 percent the modern left.

I am hopeful that those of you who know me will vouch for my credibility in the days to come. I stand this morning with a difficult message... ANDOR | 2.09

[nate-fraust]

I just had a brain wave. And maybe this is overly ambitious and won't catch on. But we need to have a series of recognized symbols or keywords you can attach to a fic or publicly posted fiction indicating the types of criticism or whatever that the author is looking for, how should be sent (eg. comment or other) / whether or not they're open to it

It would be cool if AO3 did with this something like they did with their archive warnings since i think it would help stimulate commenting, creative production and excellence, while minimizing social frustration.

but surely we can rig something

[nate-fraust]

So, then, what's the separation barrier for Mongoloid peoples? The dryer bits before you hit the Indian plate and the Far East?

youre just another degenerate sex obsessed moid that thinks hes the smartest tard in the room. but youre not. youre not well read on shit and its embarrassing. there are not 4 subspecies of race. actually read the literature you 19th century larping idiot

I actually studied forensic anthropology, there are four major morphological groupings that are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid.

These aren't racial groupings, as I said, these are the morphological features found across geographic areas.

Caucasoid covers the native peoples of Europe, the Middle East, India, and North Africa.

Mongoloid covers the native peoples of Asia, North, South and Central America, and parts of Oceania.

Negroid covers the native peoples of Sub Saharan Africa, and the Sentinel Islands.

Australoid covers the native peoples of Indo-Oceania.

Racial classifications can further break down these morphological groups, showing not just environmental morphological changes, but significant genetic drift between geographic populations.

Now, I've gone over this before, but I will do it again, and again and again, so why not do so now.

These racial differences in skeletal structure arose when small genetic changes developed in populations isolated by geography.

As world travel increases and people of different racial backgrounds intermix and produce children, it becomes harder to differentiate individuals of different, smaller races.

However there are key features that help forensic anthropologists identify these morphological groupings;

We will refer to the groupings as C, N, and M, for brevity.

C's tend to have smaller teeth, often with significant crowding and impacted third molars, and frequently exhibiting an overbite.

N's rarely have crowding and the upper teeth often project outwards due to the angled shape of the maxilla.

M's have well spaced teeth but often exhibit sclerosed dentition—when calcium deposits build up inside the tooth, thinning the root canal—leaving teeth loose within the mandible and easily cracked.

The hard palate is the bony structure at the top of the mouth bordered by the upper teeth.

In M's, the palate is elliptical, with the ‘U’ shape angling in at the back teeth.

In N's, the palate is hyperbolic, a perfect ‘U’ shape with straight lines.

And in C's, the palate is parabolic with the ends of the ‘U’ flaring outwards.

The transverse palatine suture that horizontally transects the palate also varies by race: It is straight in M's, curved in N's, and a jagged line in C's.

The shape of the incisors is the most important indicator of race in the teeth.

In M's, the incisors are shovel-shaped, named because the inner surface is scooped or curved.

Both N's and C's have blade-form incisors where the tooth has a flat profile.

The nose provides multiple race indicators.

In C's, the nasal aperture is long and narrow, with a high bridge and a sharp nasal sill.

In N's, the nasal aperture is short and wide with a low bridge and a guttered or trough-like nasal sill.

In M's, the nasal aperture is medium-sized with both a medium bridge and nasal sill.

The shape of the mastoid process differs between the races.

In N's, the bony projection is wide, in C's it is narrow and pointed, and in M's, a secondary smaller projection forms on the back surface of the mastoid process.

Here we can see the differences between the morphological groups, A belongs to the C's, B belongs to the N's and C belongs to the M's.

With the skulls compared we can see further differences.

The C's have less pronounced cheek bones and exhibit elongated chins.

Nasal openings are triangular shaped with a more pronounced (protruding) nasal bridge.

The eye orbits are rectangular in shape, resembling aviator sunglasses, and somewhat sloped when viewed from the front. The teeth are smaller in comparison to other skull types and set closely together.

The M's cheek bones are wide, flare out to the sides of the skull and are forward-sloping.

The eye orbits are rounded and don't have the same downward slope as the C's skull does.

The nasal opening is flared at the bottom, making it wider than the C's skull, and has a less pronounced nasal bridge.

The N's skull is longer from front to back and has more of a forward slope from forehead to chin.

The slope causes a protrusion of the jaw, also referred to as prognathism.

The eye orbits are rectangular and spaced farther apart with a wider nasal bridge, which is less pronounced than the C or M types.

The nasal opening is also broader.

That doesn't mean all of these indicators point firmly to a single race, instead, it is the story told by the majority of morphological characteristics that tell an individual's background.

Additional skeletal features can help indicate race as well, bone density can also be a factor.

Bone density is quite a bit higher in N's, M's tend to have bone density that is as low or even lower than C's.

Though, some C's have bone density that is a little bit higher than usual.

Differences in fracture risk between different racial and ethnic groups are very real because of this.

The information gathered by a forensic anthropologist concerning age, sex and race can lead criminal investigators to a narrowed missing persons search and hopefully to a definitive victim identification.

However, I will agree with you, we shouldn't use race as the term to differentiate between each other, the term subspecies is more accurate.

While yes, we are one species, we are also each members of different subspecies belonging to the one species known as Homo Sapiens.

Subspecies are typically defined as geographical races with allopatric or parapatric distributions.

Allopatric speciation occurs when a species separates into two separate groups that are isolated from one another.

A physical barrier, such as a mountain range or a waterway, makes it impossible for them to breed with one another.

Parapatric speciation occurs when a smaller population is isolated, usually at the periphery of a larger group, and becomes differentiated to the point of becoming a new species.

Phenotype refers to an individual's Observable characteristics or traits, such as height, eye colour and blood type determined by both their genomic makeup and environmental factors, such as diet, disease, exercise.

The idea is that for populations to be considered subspecies, their phenotypes must be diagnosably distinct, and they are across the four major groupings, that being Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid.

So, as I said before;

Caucasoid covers the morphological groupings of the peoples that are native to Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and India.

Mongoloid covers the morphology groupings of the peoples that are native to Asia, the Pacific Islands, North and South America.

Negroid covers the morphological groupings of the peoples that are native to Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Sentinelese.

Australoid covers the morphological grouping of the people native to Australia, New Zealand, and Papau New Guinea.

Forensic Anthropology can be used to determine your ancestry, your sex, age, health, diseases you may have suffered, lifestyle, and race, I will make use of the term subspecies to refer to others race, I will as it'll be more accurate.

As race, is defined as one's geographical phenotype, and does not refer to our species as a whole, but geographical, morphological subsets of said species.

Homo Sapiens Africanus.

Homo Sapiens Indo-Europa.

Homo Sapiens Asiaticus.

Homo Sapiens Australis.

If you want to combat my arguments, I'd suggest taking the time to actually do your own research on the subject rather than flinging surface level insults.

Now, if you want to know why I didn't mention the Australoid differences, here's why;

Looks like a fucking Neanderthal's skull, but no, that's a modern Australian Aboriginal skull next to a European skull.

Look at that, and tell me racial differences are only skin deep, fucking hell, it's not like I spent money to study this shit, no, clearly some random feminist anon thinks she's more educated with her 2 second google search.

Fucking hell.

[nate-fraust]

Look, I like the Aesir as much as anyone else, but if your Allfather has to pull a Saul to determine the fate of his son, then he's not that powerful.

Your worship of an evil and controlling god has brought you nothing but misery, and stopped you from being you truest self, and prevented you from having solidarity with your fellow workers. I know my gods are stronger and greater then yourse, for they have helped me find liberation, and best enjoy the comforts and pleasures of this earth, while your god is a creature of nothing but misery. Hail Hel the comfort of the broken. Hail Thor the protector of humanity and breaker of chains. Hail Odin the liberator of forbidden knowledge. May their power eclipse Christ's.

Perhaps one day you will be free of His power. We don't even know who you truly are. You could even be nonbinary like me. We await the day when you're free.

I never wondered what the Tumblr equivalent of having a jehovas witness knock on your door. But now I know.

[nate-fraust]

idk if this is just me and my limited media exposure/literacy, but why does it feel like the most popular black male/white female ships of the past decade are literally just that Doofenschmirtz meme?

[nate-fraust]

To quote the text itself:

"I am," said Aslan. "But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

Of course, this controversy is predicated on the possibility of Streep actually being cast and this not being an attention-grab headline from a dying industry. However, it's interesting that in addition to and in spite of having three to five clear indicators of Christ's sex in the Narnia books and the Bible, they would choose to try and subvert what is one of mankind's oldest symbols of masculinity - the (male) lion.

I mean, it's one of the clearest displays of sexual dimorphism in nature, but hey, no one will notice if you anthropomorphize a full-grown male lion, then give it the wrong voice, right?

If she does get cast, then it's obvious the show isn't about adapting Narnia--it's about The Message. And honestly what better way of driving that Message home than by basterdizing a Christian story.

Cos Christianity is the antithesis of the Liberal modern media Message. Its about self sacrifice instead of self-centeredness. It's about finding identity in Christ, instead of in ourselves and our actions. It's about worship of God, not worship of Me. Its about freedom through obedience, not freedom through doing whatever you want. It's about The Truth.

Taking a preexisting, loved story as a vessel of The Message is common these days with all the reboot remake live action culture. Taking a preexisting, loved Christian story pushes The Message even more and has the additional 'benefit' of attacking directly at the enemy of The Message.

But Christ has already won, and every act against Him and His people and the beautiful art of His followers are just the devil throwing a tantrum and ruining what is good because he can't win.

[nate-fraust]

Tbf to your last statement, it seems most people with TDS have also forgotten the past two centuries of world history when it comes to the reality of who and what they choose to propagate and worship.

Let’s see what happens

[nate-fraust]

Man, I need to read EU Star Wars.

[nate-fraust]

I love cooking. My longest job (so far) was as a line cook for a local uni, and for all the shit management gave me, it felt so fucking good hearing that people liked my style.

At the same time, I'm also the main cook for my family now, fulfilling my duties as a son with no real prospects jobwise. Cooking gives me structure, purpose, and that same dopamine hit that I can't really get elsewhere.

How in the hell is it wrong to know how to do a basic fucking life skill well, just because you've got a different chromosome?

I just heard a male teacher say "ladies, i'll tell you that the way to a mans heart is through his stomach so make sure you can cook real good, and boys, also make sure you can cook well because the ladies will be mighty impressed if they come home and you've cooked up a meal that not only tastes good but looks good."

disgusting.

[nate-fraust]

Anyone else remember that video of, like, 20 or so news stations all doing exactly this? I can't find it, but still, point stands.

Very creepy: the exact same words and the exact same clips of Jan 6 and Elon with the chainsaw in all of them.

Practically all career politicians are just puppets and mouthpieces for shady and unelected forces bigger than governments. When something like the above happens on such a scale, it's a clear sign that those forces are feeling particularly threatened and close to being exposed.

[nate-fraust]

Another thing (and this can be rather obvious, but I got a (semi-worthless) degree in mass communication, so bleh): the canon Gospel texts, while being semi-impersonalized accounts of the life and ministry of Christ, do possess evidence of viewpoints that the author(s) could not have experienced themselves - aka, first-hand accounts from non-disciples. People knew these things happened because they experienced them, which leads to a further surety that early Christians were not bullshitting when they preached and wrote their work.

The pluralisty version of religion as a cultural way of live is just fundemantly different from the christian concept of religion as a truth claim because ways of life do not have to be universal but truth is

And I think it leads to misunderstandings about evanglising

Christianity, because of it's nature as a claim to the truth about God, is either for everyone or for no none. Either true or false. Because truth is universal - we don't all have our own specific truth. What's true is true independent of people.

And so when Christians evangalise, it's because we believe our faith to be true (and also because it's commanded in our holy texts that too)

It is not because we have a cultural way of life and spirituality we want to everyone to universally partake in

It's because truth is universal

And truth is what Christianity claims

Christians don't see religion as one to one equalling culture and Christians do not have to change their culture when they become christian (though they will have to stop things that are considered sin even if they are prominent in their culture)

And that's also why it's frustrating when people are like "yeah it's fine if you're a Christian if that's the way to be spiritual for you" because that is fundemantly not what this religion is

[nate-fraust]

I love linguistics.

»swofehuper« by richard tipping (+)

[via]

[nate-fraust]

To put this into the perspective of how Tolkien may have viewed such an abominable pairing: if Galadriel is akin to Mother Mary (as he himself acknowledged in his Letters), and if Sauron is the Middle-earth equivalent of Satan...

Need I say more?

rings of power writers: Yes we understand that by this point in the story, Galadriel had been married to Celeborn for thousands of years. But she's a strong independent woman, so she doesn't need a husband!

also rings of power writers: We're gonna ship Galadriel with Sauron and even say that she loves him. Who cares that he had her brother killed by a werewolf or that he's pure evil. Shipping the heroine with the villain is what you're supposed to do!

These people are idiots. Let me say this clearly, if you ship Galadriel with Sauron then you are disgusting and stupid. Not you have your opinion and I can respect that even if it's different from my own. No, you are simply stupid and disgusting if you ship those two. You gonna ship Ellen Ripley with the Aliens? Laurie Strode with Michael Meyers? Princess Leia with Grand Moff Tarkin?

[nate-fraust]

Some thoughts on Eldar marriage in regards to RoP

So, as perhaps expected, Rings of Power's second season ended with not one mention of Celeborn and yet more Haladriel/Sauriel ship-bait. I could endeavor to detail the many valid critiques and issues voiced by those creators critical of the series in regards to the characterization of both RoP!Sauron and RoP!Galadriel, but for now, I'm more interested in a little bit of exploration into Tolkien's potential thoughts and intents regarding Eldar marriage. Please take note, however, that I am of only middling understanding and comprehension of the full depth and breadth of the Professor's legendarium, and thus my analysis is barely below surface-level. This should not deduct from the importance of this post, but rather should elevate it in its intent frankness on Tolkien's perspective of the subject.

Tolkien the Catholic

As is evident by both the legendarium and the Letters, J.R.R. Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. Though many on this site may take issue with either the Catholic Church in particular or Christianity as a whole due to one reason or another, this fact of Tolkien's faith cannot be disputed. Throughout his letters, Tolkien references "Our Lady" (a reverential title bestowed upon the Virgin Mary/Mother Mary by Roman Catholics) twice, responds to or references [C.S.] Lewis 143 times, and generally espouses Christian or Roman Catholic ideals dozens, if not hundreds of times. In so doing, he makes his thoughts on marriage and divorce rather explicit.

For instance, in Letter 49 - a draft, dated 1943, of a response to Lewis regarding the idea of "'two distinct kinds of marriage': Christian marriage, which is binding and lifelong, and marriage-contracts solemnised only by the State, which make no such demands" - Tolkien writes:

Toleration of divorce – if a Christian does tolerate it – is toleration of a human abuse, which it requires special local and temporary circumstances to justify (as does the toleration of usury) – if indeed either divorce or genuine usury should be tolerated at all, as a matter merely of expedient policy.

Tolkien's stance is typical and representative of common Catholic doctrine regarding the nature of marriage as an eternal bond between man and woman. Indeed, in Letter 43 - a letter, dated March 6-8 1941, to his second son Michael - he writes of the idea of 'destined' love:

In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean heart, and fidelity of will…..

Taken at face value, then, Tolkien views 'unfallen' marriage - that is to say, a pure form of marriage untainted by the Christian idea of the Fall of Man - as possessing the qualities he categorizes as 'guides' for fallen man.

What, then, does this understanding of Tolkien's deepset notions of marriage mean for his intent for Eldar marriage and familial practices?

Tolkien the (Sub-)Creator

In Volume 10 of The History of Middle-Earth, "Morgoth's Ring", Christopher Tolkien recorded his father's thoughts on the marriage and familial customs of the Eldar under the heading "OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS AMONG THE ELDAR PERTAINING TO MARRIAGE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO: TOGETHER WITH THE STATUTE OF FINWE AND MIRIEL AND THE DEBATEOF THE VALAR AT ITS MAKING". In "OF THE LAWS", J.R.R. Tolkien writes:

The Eldar wedded once only in life, and for love or at the least by free will upon either part. Even when in after days, as the histories reveal, many of the Eldar in Middle-earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them.

Following a detailing of Eldar betrothal, Tolkien writes:

It was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete. In happy days and times of peace it was held ungracious and contemptuous of kin to forgo the ceremonies, but it was at all times lawful for any of the Eldar, both being unwed, to marry thus of free consent one to another without ceremony or witness (save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name); and the union so joined was alike indissoluble. In days of old, in times of trouble, in flight and exile and wandering, such marriages were often made.

Finally, after a section regarding the birth and rearing of Eldar children, Tolkien writes:

Thus, although the wedded remain so for ever, they do not necessarily dwell or house together at all times; for without considering the chances and separations of evil days, wife and husband, albeit united, remain persons individual having each gifts of mind and body that differ. Yet it would seem to any of the Eldar a grievous thing if a wedded pair were sundered during the bearing of a child, or while the first years of its childhood lasted. For which reason the Eldar would beget children only in days of happiness and peace if they could.

When read with the added context of Tolkien's Catholic Christianity, the idea of an eternal Eldar marriage seems self-evident (though he does himself make note of the idea of the 'right of revoking' an Eldar betrothal and the idea of unreturned love early in the essay, as well as the turning of Eldar desires towards other things following the birth and early years of a child that could result in a physical/spatial separation of the couple).

In detailing the form, function, and behavior of Eldar marriage, Tolkien thusly exercised what he described as "'subcreation', a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety, one of the ways in which indeed it is exhibited...". More specifically, he interjected a Catholic ideal of eternal marriage into the core culture of the Eldar of Middle-earth, and thus espoused the human understanding of the Christian God's intent for the practice of marriage.

The Importance of "Celedriel"

With Tolkien's authorial intent thus contextualized and explained, I think it would be fitting to end this post with some thoughts on the importance of Celeborn to the Second Age and the proper story of "The Rings of Power" through his marriage to Galadriel.

Beyond the simple fact that Celeborn exists in "Rings of Power" through Galadriel's naming of him as "my husband", a few things can be inferred about his nature. Though Galadriel's description of him as looking like "a silver clam" whose "armor didn't fit properly" seems to be intended as a moment of brevity in the manufactured heaviness of the scene between her and Theo, a genuine interpretation of the scene would seem to reveal that RoP!Celeborn is:

Willing, if not eager, to go to war in defense of his people/against the forces of Morgoth, and/or

Is so desperate to fulfill his duty to his fellow elves that he would rush off to war in spite of his unreadiness.

Thus, Celeborn can be seen as a reliable and faithful character, at least according to Galadriel's brief description of him. Furthermore, when looking at the Appendices of "The Lord of the Rings", we can trace Celeborn's familial relations, and thus the relationships he would feel blood-bound to defend, beyond Galadriel. In particular, Celeborn is "a kinsman of Thingol" - specifically "Thingol Greycloak of Doriath", the king of the Sindar. Thus, Celeborn is not only husband to Galadriel, but part of the royal leadership of an entirely separate clan of Elves to Galadriel's Noldor clan. Therefore, through Celeborn, there can be a natural expansion of Elven lore and culture outside of what the show has thrown together, with numerous potential storylines and interpersonal conflicts.

Finally, in regard to Celeborn's marriage to Galadriel, the eternal marital bond forged between them precludes and overrides any potential desire for another mate felt by either of them. To return again to Tolkien's words on the matter:

They are not easily deceived by their own kind; and their spirits being masters of their bodies, they are seldom swayed by the desires of the body only, but are by nature continent and steadfast.

While much and more could (and indeed should) be said regarding the anathematic writing and subsequent incongruent portrayal of Galadriel in "Rings of Power", the authorial intent is clear within the allowed adaptable text: Elves are faithful to one another, wise, controlled, and discerning. They do not easily fall for deceit or physical desire. Though their long lives and subsequent long experiences, they are the wisest and greatest of all the races of Middle-earth.

In short: they are not Men, with ever-shifting desires and volatile hearts.

(And now to wonder as to the idiocy of Elven dementia...)

[nate-fraust]

On Tolkien, Martin, and Legacy

NOTE: this is the last of a four-part series concerning the creation and intent of the streaming series "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power" and "House of the Dragon". The following text was originally written on September 18, 2022.

---

Tolkien has often been ‘quoted’ as wanting to make ‘a mythology for England’ through his works on Middle-earth; this sentiment, though false in its words, holds true in his early views toward his stories. However, while Middle-earth is less a mythology for England in particular than a general alternate view of the medieval world in the Dark Ages, its influence on modern fiction is, in some ways, indeed tantamount to ancient mythologies on the tropes and structures of storytelling today. LeGuin, Pratchett, King, and many other modern writers claim to be influenced by the Professor’s work, but perhaps the best author of today that could rival Tolkien in style and scope is George R.R. Martin. 

Regarding being “true to Tolkien”, in a 2002 interview with Charlie Rose, Peter Jackson said, “We didn’t want to put any of our own baggage - I mean, we had no interest in putting our messages into this movie, but we thought that we should honor Tolkien by putting his messages into it.” Adaptation, by its very nature, means that some things may get lost in the telling - Hermes, for example, may have originally been an aspect of the god Pan, but was split off into his own being in the centuries over which his stories were orally recited. However, by the very nature of works of authors like Tolkien or Martin being written down, the importance with which society has imbued them imparts a kind of reverence that demands and requires the same care to be taken when adapting them to a format or story that is other than what they originally were.

“Rings of Power”, in that respect, has nearly utterly failed in its responsibilities as an adaptation of the legacies of both Tolkien and Jackson, whereas “House of the Dragon”, bearing respect for Martin and “Game of Thrones”, has succeeded. “Rings”, by its very nature, has done to Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” the exact opposite of “House of the Dragon”’s effect on “Game of Thrones”, having somehow retroactively tarnished the prior film trilogy for people who have only seen Amazon’s adaptation rather than both of them. Let me explain using the deeper lore that the showrunners and writers do not have access to.

In the opening moments of “A Shadow of the Past”, the pilot episode of “Rings of Power”, the writers depict the Darkening of Valinor, an event in which Melkor - Tolkien’s equivalent to the biblical Lucifer - destroys the Two Trees of Valinor. This act plunges the eponymouys island paradise into darkness and prompts the Elves of Valinor to go to war against Melkor, who they call Morgoth. This event, as recounted in the Appendices of “The Return of the King” - which is the only work of Tolkien the writers apparently have access to - is recorded thusly:

"[Fёanor] wrought the Three Jewels, the Silmarilli, and filled them with the radiance of the Two Trees, Telperion and Laurelin, that gave light to the land of the Valar. The Jewels were coveted by Morgoth the Enemy, who stole them and, after destroying the Trees, took them to Middle-earth, and guarded them in his great fortress of Thangorodrim. Against the will of the Valar Fёanor forsook the Blessed Realm and went in exile to Middle-earth, leading with him a great part of his people; for in his pride he purposed to recover the Jewels from Morgoth by force. Thereafter followed the hopeless war of the Eldar and the Edain against Thangorodrim, in which they were at last utterly defeated.” 

“The Silmarillion” expands on this short explanation by giving Fёanor a personal reason to go after Morgoth, as he killed Finwё, Fёanor’s father. However, in “The Silmarillion”, Fёanor’s journey to Middle-earth becomes both a voluntary decision and a banishment by the Valar, the gods of Middle-earth, due to his part in perpetrating the First Kinslaying of the Teleri elves by the Noldori elves, the first murder of elves by elves in all the history of Middle-earth. His actions, not the actions of Morgoth, are the reason for nearly every major elven character in “Rings of Power” to even be in Middle-earth, as they were part of the Noldor, the elven clan that accompanied and aided Fёanor in his war against Morgoth and were subsequently banished alongside him, unable to return to Valinor and forced to die and remain dead like Men. Yet, the show only mentions him in passing.

Galadriel, for her part, is the niece of Fёanor, and followed her uncle into exile. It was, in fact, her hair that partly inspired the creation of the Silmarils, as it was said to possess a sheen like the Two Trees. However, rather than aid Fёanor in his mission to regain the Silmarils, she sought to heckle his progress and defended her maternal kin, the Teleri, against his assault in the First Kinslaying. The lore makes no mention of any great skill in battle that she might possess, save for a few notes on her “Amazon disposition” in regards to athletics and her ability to command and earn respect from many people. Indeed, she did not fight in any of the major wars of the First or Second Ages of Middle-earth, instead wandering the world with her husband, Celeborn. This aspect of her character, along with the entire character of Celeborn, seems non-existent in the show.

Elrond, named “Half-elven” by the Sindar Elves of Middle-earth, is the great-great-grandnephew of Fёanor, and was rescued, named, and raised by Fёanor’s second son Maglor after the Third Kinslaying, which resulted in the apparent death of his mother, Elwing. Elros, Elrond's brother, was also rescued, named, and raised by Maglor alongside him, and went on to found the Kingdom of Númenor, dying after 500 years due to having chosen the Gift of Men - that is, a mortal life and death. Elrond, on the other hand, chose his elven heritage, and thus became immortal. After the wars of the Second Age - during which he fought alongside his king Gil-galad - and early into the Third Age, he married Celebrían, daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn and future mother of Arwen Undómiel, wife of Aragorn Elessar. However, despite the inferred existence of Fёanor in “Rings of Power” due to the existence of his grandson Celebrimbor, as well as a mention of him in Elrond’s dialogue, Maglor, his son, cannot exist, due to his existence in materials Amazon cannot use in their adaptation. Thus, Elrond as he is in the show should not exist. To compound the troubles, by the removal of Celeborn, Celebrían cannot exist, and so Arwen cannot exist.

To summarize using only these three characters: by the removal of key characters like Fёanor and Celeborn, the very story which Amazon claims to be adapting cannot exist. Thus, the legacy of “Rings of Power” as fanfiction of the lowest caliber is secured, as well as the impossibility of its very existence.

[nate-fraust]

On Intrigues, Mysteries, and Storytelling

NOTE: This is the third of a four-part series concerning the creation and intent of the streaming series "Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power" and "House of the Dragon". The following was originally written on September 11, 2022.

---

As of the writing of this post, both “House of the Dragon” and “Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” have released three episodes out of their eight-episode first seasons, with the fourth episode of the former premiering this Sunday. However, while both series are high-budget fantasy endeavors from well-known companies, the vast differences in storytelling quality between the two have resulted in much more negative press and audience reception for “Rings of Power” than “House of the Dragon”. The reasons for this, as given by viewers’ reviews, range from bad writing to disrespect for the original lore. Seeing as how these blog posts are intended to look at how the lore of each series’ source materials was adapted, I figure that writing a sort of pseudo-review for each of them would work rather well to serve as proof of one’s superiority over the other.

“House of the Dragon”, based on George R. R. Martin’s novel “Fire and Blood”, depicts the events leading up to one of the most significant events in the history of the Targaryen dynasty: the Dance of Dragons, a civil war fought against two rival claimants to the Iron Throne that claimed the lives of many Targaryens and the majority of their dragons. Following an opening scene meant to set up the reason for the inevitable conflict, the episodes focus on the courtly and familial dynamics of its main characters - King Viserys Targaryen, his siblings Rhaenys and Daemon, his daughter Rhaenyra, and the myriad of other non-Targaryens that congregate around and interact with them in one way or another. The series deals with issues of succession, marriage, defense of the realm, and what it means to be of a royal or important lineage - and especially what it means to be a woman of either lineage.

Those familiar with the previous series set in Martin’s world, “Game of Thrones”, will find the quality of writing to be on par with the earlier seasons of that show. The courtly maneuvering of noble lords like Otto Hightower or Corlys Velaryon, played by Rhys Ifans and Steve Toussaint, respectively, to make their own daughters Viserys’ new queen is reminiscent of the war of wits between the members of Houses Tyrell and Lannister. However, the battles are not simply limited to the pair’s interactions with their liege outside the rooms of the Red Keep, but are also waged in the verbal spars of meeting rooms and bedchambers. Rhaenyra, Viserys’ chosen heir currently played by Milly Alcock, chafes under the societal expectations placed upon her, though she is more adept at court life than her far-off, unborn relative, Daenerys. Alicent Hightower, Rhaenyra’s friend-turned-stepmother currently played by Emily Carey, puts forth a compellingly innocent front around many of her peers, though hints of a more cunning nature surface from time to time.

However, the two stand-out performances come from Paddy Considine’s Viserys and his brother, Matt Smith’s Daemon. The former infuses the King with a palpable pathos after the deaths of his first wife, Sian Brooke’s Aemma Arryn, and his newborn son Baelon in the first episode - an event he is indirectly responsible for, having allowed a caesarian section to be performed in an effort to save Baelon. He is a man consumed by his grief and driven by a desire to keep the peace in both his realm and his family - a drive that is, by the nature of the original text, doomed to fail. Smith’s Daemon, on the other hand, is the near-antithesis of his sibling; the head of the Goldcloaks of King’s Landing and a well-seasoned adventurer and fighter, he seeks only to protect his family from those who would do them harm - an effort that he, like his brother, is destined to fail at.

“Rings of Power”, “inspired” by J. R. R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and the “Appendices” attached to the back of the last book, “The Return of the King”, apparently tells the story of the Second Age of Middle-earth, though in a more condensed manner than “House of the Dragon” due to the showrunners not wanting to have to cast potentially dozens to a hundred or so actors to portray the many mortal Men that would have lived and died in the millennia-long timeline of the actual Second Age. Following a poorly-done opening that tries and fails to do the same thing that “House of the Dragon” did, “Rings of Power” splits its focus between four to six loosely-connected storylines revolving around three elves, a “not-a-Hobbit”, and a Mannish naval captain and his son. The series meanders between the rising of the Dark Lord Sauron, the politics of the island nation of Númenor, and the adventures/misadventures of a black elf and a “not-a-Hobbit”.

In comparison to the depth of the characters of “House of the Dragon”, the characters of “Rings of Power '' come off more as cheap imitations of those from “Lord of the Rings”. Morfydd Clark’s Galadriel seems to be an inverted Éowyn, quick to anger and action and lacking in grace and wisdom, while Ismael Cruz Córdova’s Arondir and Markella Kavenagh’s Nori Brandyfoot come off as off-brand versions of Aragorn and Frodo, respectively. They even have their own Arwen, Sam and Gandalf in Nazanin Boniadi’s Bronwyn, Megan Richards’ Poppy Proudfellow, and Daniel Weyman’s Stranger. 

Clark’s Galadriel, in a drastic shift away from the depictions of Tolkien’s text and Peter Jackson’s film version played by Cate Blanchett, is a warrior-princess, hell-bent on getting vengeance for her unnamed brother by hunting down and possibly killing Sauron, a being equivalent to a Biblical angel. She is willing to abandon her comrades to die and forsakes the chance at eternal peace for her insane mission, and acts like a Karen whenever she’s forced to speak instead of fight - a far cry from the largely-peaceful Lady of Lórien given to us by Tolkien and Jackson. Arondir and Nori, being original characters made for the show, are just as poorly-written; in the case of Nori and her Harfoot kinspeople, the “Irish Times” have said that they are “filthy, hungry simpletons with stage-Irish accents”, while Arondir manages first to get himself captured by orcs, then is left as the only slave in their work-camp after the other elves - all of whom could be classified as “white” were they in the modern day - are either mauled to death by a warg, are shot by arrows, or have their neck slit by orcs.

The only character with any real substance is Richard Aramayo’s Elrond, who surprisingly acts rather a lot like Hugo Weaving’s depiction in the films, though he does not stand up for himself like one might expect when Galadriel says to his face, “You have not seen what I have seen.” His scenes with High King Gil-galad, played by Benjamin Walker, the renowned elven smith Celebrimbor, played by Charles Edwards, and Prince Durin IV of the dwarven realm of Khazad-dûm, played by Owain Arthur, are full of the expected deference, reverence, and sorrow one would expect from an immortal being. His remorse at having missed 20 years of his friend Durin’s life is particularly poignant, as it brings back memories of the fact that he has lost his parents and was forced to watch his brother die a long, yet ultimately mortal life.

The themes of Martin are present and strongly felt in “House of the Dragon”, which uses its time skips, indicated somewhat-skillfully through dialogue and scenes, to emphasize the unchanging nature of Viserys’ reign. Yet, in the smaller details, like the continuous loss of Viserys’ fingers to infection or his evolving relationships with Alicent and Rhaenyra, we receive a sense of slow-burning progression, punctuated by the drastic actions of Daemon in his rounding up of criminals, his theft of his dead nephew’s dragon egg, and his three-year war against eastern invaders in the border islands of the Stepstones.

In “Rings of Power”, we receive little in the way of character development or interesting plotlines; instead, everything seems to be a series of set-ups to a probably-underwhelming season finale. Characters pulled from canon are dumped in our laps half-baked before being sent on nearly-meaningless quests. The new characters, as poor imitations of members of the Fellowship, either do next to nothing to advance their pointless story thread or else are perhaps inadvertently tokenized. In regards to Tolkien’s themes, I have decided to give up on hoping that the showrunners will respect them, and now view the series as primarily fanfiction of a worse caliber than “Fifty Shades of Grey”. The compressed timeline they have chosen to work with goes directly against the notion of “death… and the desire for deathlessness” present in Tolkien’s writings, but even if they don’t have the rights to the primary text of the Second Age, “The Silmarillion”, the nature of the elves as immortals in a land of death is a compelling-enough substitute. However, this nuance has been foregone in favor of pale shadows of former stories and snippets of modern politics.

These early outings into Middle-earth make me concerned about the likelihood of “Rings of Power” continuing past its freshman season. I cannot say whether or not it should continue based solely on the first three episodes, but If it does, it will be only by the slimmest of margins, as a gulf has formed between the people involved in the production and promotion of the show and the audience, and the showrunners and writers will have to work incredibly hard to salvage the wreck they have been driving for so long.

In regards to “House of the Dragon”, the experience and passion present in every aspect of the show leave me excited and eager for future stories about the last of the dragonlords in the land of Westeros. If the first season ends on the cusp of the Dance of Dragons, then I would expect a second season to be an almost-Shakespearean tragedy made epically intimate in its scope and writing.