#anghraine's rants

[anghraine]

I was re-reading an old LOTR post that quoted Aragorn's line from the book:

"Little do I resemble the figures of Elendil and Isildur as they stand carven in their majesty in the halls of Denethor. I am but the heir of Isildur, not Isildur himself."

Some things that immediately jumped to mind:

1) It turns out that Aragorn actually does look quite a lot like Elendil and Isildur, but it's only noticeable when a) he cleans up or b) he's coming into his own on a more ... spiritual yet practical level, I guess.

Significantly, when Pippin is later struck by Denethor's very Númenórean appearance in ROTK, he specifically associates it with how much Denethor's specific features resemble Aragorn's. The Appendix reiterates this; as Thorongil, Aragorn looked like Denethor's "nearest kin."

I don't think this response is completely false humility, though, because Aragorn doesn't really look like that in the specific scene where he disclaims the resemblance, and probably hasn't for a long time (and he's talking to Boromir, who does seem to be considered remarkably beautiful even by Tolkien standards). But I also doubt it's coincidence that Aragorn specifically mentions Denethor and their common ancestor, Elendil, in his response.

(It's possible that Elendil and Isildur themselves didn't look quite as majestic as their statues, but eh, it's actually a big deal that Aragorn and Denethor are so similar to each other and them, so I'm inclined to think the statues are accurate.)

2) The specific way he ties Denethor in is by referring to the throne room/hall, complete with majestic statues of the kings, as "the halls of Denethor" rather than one of the various other names it goes by. This could be strategic, since he's trying to dial down the tension in that moment; he goes out of his way to acknowledge the authority of Boromir's father and family to his face, when pretty much everyone else has acted like he's just some guy. It might also be a concession that right now, they are Denethor's halls.

It's also interesting because, when Aragorn later tries to exclude himself from Rohan's laws based on his royal stature, Háma sharply responds, "This is the house of Théoden, not of Aragorn, even were he King of Gondor in the seat of Denethor.”

Of course, the literal seat of Denethor, the chair of the Stewards, is pointedly not the royal throne, but lbr that's Númenórean sophistry that the Rohirrim don't care about. But I do think there's something interesting in the way that specific physical objects of the hall—the chair, the throne, the statues—are linked to Denethor and Aragorn and their own interrelationship.

3) Aragorn is extremely careful here and often elsewhere to not link himself to Anárion, though he is also descended from him and the tie to Anárion formed a critical part of the original formal claim made by Arvedui (though IMO Arvedui did pretty significantly misrepresent its significance under Númenórean law and tradition).

Aragorn's choice may be because of the failure of the original claim and to avoid getting caught up in legal minutia when both he and Denethor are descendants of Anárion outside the direct male line. And his ultimate presentation to Gondor as claimant makes zero mention of Anárion or Fíriel. So here's one of the first instances of that careful downplaying of the tie to Anárion.

4) Not to make literally everything about my gripes with the Jackson movies, but this is a very clear example of something the movies do a lot, which apparently was one of Christopher Tolkien's main causes of frustration—taking lines (esp dialogue) from the original novel and moving them to different characters or contexts to serve some different purpose that changes their meaning, sometimes radically.

That is very definitely the case here. Even though the full quote above, in its original context, would make zero sense for movie Aragorn, the bolded part does make it into the movies, but in a context which completely reverses its meaning.

In the book, the point of "I am but the heir of Isildur, not Isildur himself" is that Aragorn is freely acknowledging that he knows he doesn't have the spectacular majesty that Isildur did and he is only Isildur's heir. In the films, the line shifts to Arwen IIRC, and is re-contextualized as comfort for Aragorn that he isn't doomed to being a morally weak fuck-up like movie Isildur just because he's descended from him.

And honestly, while re-purposing Tolkien's lines doesn't always bother me, re-purposing them to mean exactly the opposite from the original does rub me the wrong way, ngl, esp given how difficult it's been to even talk about Isildur for the last ... uhh 20 years without everything being reduced to some movie!Isildur meme that makes zero sense for Tolkien's characters.

[ncfan-1]

anghraine replied to your post: Out of morbid curiosity, as someone who can’t...

No idea. Luke as this epitome of purity and optimism has definitely taken off on Tumblr (which turns any remotely good-natured character into whitebread cinnamon rolls), but the Luke Is Really Like Padmé thing was pretty common when I got into lj SW fandom years ago. My rant about Luke and Leia as Padmé’s son/Anakin’s daughter opposites was originally posted there in 2011.

I sort of wonder if it’s not just some sort of arbitrary “each child must take after one of their parents, and they can’t both take after the same parent” rule that I’ve seen come up more than once in other fandoms. Because if you watch the movies, it’s very difficult to see where they’re supposed to be so alike. One of Luke’s most prominent, if not the most prominent, character trait--that short temper that he, for the most part, doesn’t even bother trying to control--is absent in Padme. She’s passionate, certainly, but one of the big things about Padme is that she’s a very controlled person; it’s part and parcel of having been a public figure for so long. And one of Padme’s most prominent character traits--her sense of duty--is absent in Luke.

The biggest way I can think of in which they’re alike is the way they both insist there’s still good in Anakin. But their assertions come from completely different places. Padme says they’re still good in Anakin because she’s seen the best of him as well as the worst; she knows there’s still good in him because she’s seen that good. Luke is going completely on faith; he’s never experienced any part of his father but as the agent of the Emperor. Padme’s assertion is based on experience; Luke’s, on faith. Those are two very different things. And these two people are really not very much alike at all.

[anghraine]

I know I've ranted about it a million times, but every time someone brings up Roman, Byzantine, and Egyptian inspirations/influences on Gondor in more mainstream Tolkien fandom spaces (not me, because I don't even talk about it off Tumblr/DW), it seems like there's always someone who gets super weird and defensive about it. I've seen so many "well actually there's no need to consider any influences outside of England, mythology for England blah blah" responses.

And it's like! Oh, you want to play the decontextualized Tolkien quotes game? How about this one:

“But this [the setting of LOTR] is not a purely 'Nordic' area in any sense. If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence [in Italy]. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient [Gondorian] city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy [in Turkey]. Auden has asserted that for me 'the North is a sacred direction.' That is not true. The North-west part of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man’s home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other parts; but it is not ‘sacred’, nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish ... The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a 'Nordic.'”

Or this one:

we come [in ROTK] to the half-ruinous Byzantine City of Minas Tirith

Or:

In the south Gondor rises to a peak of power, almost reflecting Númenor, and then fades slowly to decayed Middle Age, a kind of proud, venerable, but increasingly impotent Byzantium.

Or:

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled ‘Egyptians’ - the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestry and in tombs. […] I think the crown of Gondor (the S. Kingdom) was very tall, like that of Egypt, but with wings attached, not set straight back but at an angle. The N. Kingdom had only a diadem (III 323). Cf. the difference between the N. and S. kingdoms of Egypt.

Or:

Thank you very much for your letter. … It came while I was away, in Gondor (sc. Venice), as a change from the North Kingdom

Middle-earth is not equivalent to England, or northern Europe in general, and Gondor especially is not northern at all!

[anghraine]

There's this weird genre of post I've periodically seen that's like "It bothers me that autistic people come onto this site and vent about the pressure to accommodate mainstream social norms that seem unnatural to them, and these people just don't seem to get that mainstream social norms serve a function that makes them right and good, so 'help' consisting of pressuring autistic people into unnatural 24/7 performance is actually great. Really, autistic people need to meet the allistics halfway and accommodate us as well!"

Obviously, these posts aren't phrased this way—the style is usually more patronizingly helpful with a hint of chiding autistic strangers for venting on their own blogs about one of the most basic diagnostic criteria of autism. But the thing that always strikes me about these "helpful" explanations is how incredibly sheltered they seem.

I can't speak for all autistic people. But a lot of treatment for autism has historically been rooted in teaching autistic people to mimic "normal" behavior as much as possible. Success has often been understood less in terms of the strain of this mimicry on autistic people or how viscerally unpleasant it is for an autistic person to perform this way, and more in terms of the comfort of people around us. The less perceptible our symptoms are to other people, the greater the perception of success in most cases, although research increasingly suggests that "social camouflaging" is actively harmful to autistic people no matter how good we seem at it.

Yes, there's a reason for social norms. I know. Many of us know. We have been incessantly told this our entire lives and live under extreme pressure to adapt to the allistic world. We are under vastly more pressure to accommodate the social norms of our communities than most allistic people seem to even remotely grasp. All this "don't label yourself, it's all just a social construction" and "you're high-functioning, though, so-" and "WELL ACTUALLY it is morally incumbent on you to imitate our social norms" only makes this absolute abyss of ignorance seem all the deeper. It feels rather like Protestant proselytizers in the USA who walk up and are like "have you heard about Jesus?!" as if it is remotely possible to live in this country without hearing about Jesus.

Secondly, the idea that the weight of accommodating these different experiences should rest equally on allistic and autistic people is actually pretty grotesque—yes, even if you're talking about autistic people without specifically intellectual disabilities. Where is all this endless understanding and patience for the allistic world we're expected to develop when it comes to accommodating us? Usually completely absent, and even when we do receive some degree of empathy, it still seems incredibly unequal to the demand on us.

But even if that were not the case, the idea that ethically, the people with, you know, autism are under some moral onus to equally accommodate allistic people (especially allistic people who do not have any similar disabilities themselves, which is most of them!) is absurd. Most allistic people are more able to adapt to changing circumstances than autistic people and experience less strain from doing it, they are better and faster at correctly interpreting social situations and emotional cues, and social performance is easier and more natural for them, and they overwhelmingly outnumber autistic people. The logic here just seems absurd.

And thirdly this scary danger of "high functioning" autistic people not trying to accommodate the norms and comfort of allistic people on some broad scale is not happening. Here's one fairly clear discussion that isn't paywalled:

In fact, high-functioning ASD individuals were reported to be more aware of their communication difficulties and were more likely make considerable efforts to adjust their behavior to conventional rules of non-autistic individuals, learning to imitate other non-ASD individuals. Moreover, females reported a higher frequency of camouflaging strategies, suggesting a role of camouflaging in the gender gap of the ASD diagnosis. Although camouflaging strategies can sometimes grant a better level of adjustment, even resulting in a hyper-adaptive behavior, they are also often correlated with negative mental health consequences due to the long-term stress associated with continuous attempts to adapt in day-to-day life.

Seriously, the world being just too easy on autistic people and letting them actually show signs of being autistic (God forbid) without sufficient chiding is not a thing. It's not real in any significant large-scale way; the exact reverse is vastly more common. Annoying autistic people on Tumblr dot com are not a social problem.

[anghraine]

sea-salted-wolverine replied to this post:

Wdym Anakin mind tricking padme isn't real? You could chalk it up to bad writing from Lucas who isn't quite sure that women are people, but its pretty clear that by ep III that her grip on reality is toast. Whether or not it is a conscious effect on Anakins part is up for debate, but it is definitely a thing that happened

Not really the main point of my post, but no, that fan theory is not "real" in the sense of being remotely canonical for the films. It's nothing more than a popular headcanon nowhere even slightly stated to be happening in the actual films as written and produced. There's no reason in Lucas's films to suppose that the Anakin/Padmé relationship was coerced through a mind trick, that Padmé specifically would be susceptible to a mind trick, that she does not genuinely love Anakin or have any insight into his character, that her grip on reality is ever "toast," or that the mind trick (previously depicted as temporary and resistible) would work that way at all. Padmé is underwritten in ROTS in the way that cool girl heroines invented by men are often underwritten as grown adult women and especially as mothers, but that is not attributable to any character in the story.

Yes, Padmé is tired in ROTS and misses a lot of what's going on psychologically with her young secret husband who is in a cloistered order of warrior monks fighting a long-term war far away from her, but she sees the threat of Palpatine and recognizes exactly what his accession as emperor means. Her mind is fine. And in Lucas's films, also, Anakin is never shown using the mind trick on anyone. It's not really his style—it's a sneaky short-term solution whereas he's smart and resourceful enough most of the time, but mainly reliant on overwhelming power and skill. His signature "trick" is the Force-choke, not the mind trick, and it's the Force-choke that he ultimately uses against her—not because he's been using his powers against her the whole time (including when he's not even there, I guess?), but as a mark of how far he has fallen by that point. That's lost if it's not a drastic change from their previous relationship. Padmé's own choices also lose all meaning if she was mind-controlled by Anakin the whole time, and her arc becomes deeply boring.

Tl;dr - it is very far from "definitely a thing that happened." It is a headcanon that doesn't reflect anything the movies are trying to do (whether they fail or succeed at doing those things!) and is, IMO, a pretty terrible headcanon as well in terms of the overall coherence of the story and characters and how their world is shown to work.

[anghraine]

me @ me: don't respond to "inspirational" Jane Austen quotes that are actually random lines from Austen characters that reflect the specific characters' personalities and flaws rather than authorial statements about the world, don't respond to-

[anghraine]

Despite my occasional gripes with Tumblr Austen fandom, sometimes I get recommended or linked to something and remember what Austen fandom off Tumblr is like.

I was checking a message from my mother on another platform and immediately was recommended a group discussing what were essentially headcanons about Lady Catherine. The OP was fine; her question was interesting and she kept gently pointing out that a lot of widely-held fandom opinions are neither stated nor implied in the book. But a good 80-90% of the fairly numerous comments were the same old "Lady Catherine is lying about her relationship with her sister" "she was jealous of Lady Anne for being sweet and beautiful" "she probably wanted to marry Lady Anne's husband herself" blahblahblah.

It wasn't complete consensus, but so near to total agreement that it was kind of astounding. Especially given that, for instance, the fanon of young Lady Catherine being jealous of Lady Anne is wholly fanon with zero evidence in the book or even the major adaptations. The insistence that Anne de Bourgh was not actually in her cradle at the same time as Darcy and should be significantly younger than him, that he wasn't really intended for her from the moment of his birth, that Lady Catherine saying so is further proof that she's exaggerating and/or lying, and that Lady Anne must have been completely different in personality, so much sweeter and prettier than Lady Catherine and Lady Catherine was super jealous and mean towards her—it's all entirely manufactured by fandom.

And while Lady Catherine is a flawed, petty, snobbish, deeply obnoxious, and rather silly person, I've always found something strange and unpleasant about this propensity for inventing so many more, and worse, reasons to hate her and frame her as an antagonistic polar opposite to her sister (a sister we know very little about). And I'm especially weirded out by the kind of desperate straining to dispute the Lady Catherine-Lady Anne marital scheming backstory that is a fairly minor element of the plot that no character in the book has any difficulty believing.

Here's Elizabeth's response to Lady Catherine trying to leverage the planned engagement against her, for instance:

"But what is that to me? If there is no other objection to my marrying your nephew, I shall certainly not be kept from it by knowing that his mother and aunt wished him to marry Miss de Bourgh. You both did as much as you could in planning the marriage. Its completion depended on others."

So it's like ... it's not just that I think there's no canonical basis for disputing this bit of backstory. The thing I've always found much weirder is why so many people want to dispute it. Where is all this discomfort arising from? A pair of aristocratic women married to wealthy, powerful landowners in 1770s/1780s England informally arranging the marriage of their only children is not particularly strange. Yet there is a ton of fannish discomfort around it and around the possibility that Lady Catherine and Lady Anne got on well enough to make such an arrangement.

The discomfort is even more conspicuous because we know so little about the sisters' relationship. It's like:

1) Lady Catherine's daughter and only child shares her sister's name, Anne.

2) Lady Catherine claims that she and Lady Anne planned their children's marriages when both were infants; Wickham also mentions the planned engagement in passing, apparently to reinforce his claims to special knowledge of the Darcys' concerns.

3) Lady Catherine is the only person in the novel who specifically mentions Lady Anne on more than one occasion.

4) more tenuously, Lady Catherine believes daughters, in general, are never all that important to their fathers, an opinion presumably encompassing herself and her sister wrt their father the earl.

The only other quality about Lady Anne suggested by anyone in the novel is Darcy's very carefully-phrased suggestion that his father (rather than Lady Anne) was extremely amiable and benevolent, more than his mother, though both were good people. So the idea of Lady Anne as this sweet and pure ideal mother figure who couldn't possibly have been on genuinely good terms with her awful sister or been party to dynastic scheming while Darcy's father was more reserved and standoffish like him is pretty much entirely manufactured by fandom as well.

I guess my feeling on seeing this still going at full throttle in 2024 is that the "Lady Catherine must have been mean to and jealous of her perfectly sweet sister who of course never agreed to any of this nonsense or was just trying to get her to shut up" thing is such a weird takeaway from pretty much every single thing we hear about Lady Anne and Lady Catherine. It seems completely non-intuitive as a take on what little we do know of this backstory and how the other characters react, and the version suggested in the novel is neither shocking nor central to the story, yet there's this palpable fannish discomfort about it and about Lady Anne potentially being fine with Lady Catherine and less of an idealized icon than her husband.

I know I've talked about this many times over the years, but running across it still going at full force in July 2024 was pretty surreal.

[anghraine]

I feel like the lighting of the beacons scene is kind of a microcosm of my issues with the LOTR films as a whole, in that:

Cinematically, it's absolutely gorgeous and stirring

The visuals are lifted even further by the score

It's a reference to a thing that is actually in the book, just highly re-contextualized (the beacons exist in the book and have already been lit, but serve a different function; it is the Red Arrow that is used to ask for Théoden's aid, with the specific remark that Denethor is asking for aid and not demanding it; the messenger who brought the arrow is caught and decapitated on his way back to Minas Tirith and so Denethor can't know if the message got out without using the palantír)

The lighting of the beacons in the films is tied into the story they're telling, in which basically all the NPCs other characters are much more self-doubting and self-sabotaging and it's up to Our Heroes to get them to do the right thing or the heroes just do it themselves (see Treebeard, see Théoden, see Faramir...)

Specifically, the necessity of lighting the beacons in the films is a direct byproduct of making film Denethor malicious and incredibly incompetent

The quiet, almost incidental tragedy of the messenger's death in war—not in a big battle, not in any glorious way at all, just this random guy being casually chased down and killed—is lost in favor of something dramatic and show-stopping and cool.

It is dramatic and show-stopping and cool! But sacrifices were definitely made in order to work it into the story at all and I think those sacrifices were very representative of the films' adaptational approach.

[anghraine]

Is there a good post outlining all the evidence against Gaiman? I know the podcast has it and that's what people pointed to me, but considering it has been days I was wondering if someone had gathered it all into seperate post so one does not have to listen to someone advertising their work every few minutes in order to listen to the important parts.

Belatedly (given that at least three other women have accused him since my post), there are some. The best of the original ones is probably "Manufacturing Consent" by Annabel Ross, but there are also transcriptions of the original accusations that, iirc, weed out some of the editorializing and focus on the raw material (which is, just be warned, very raw).

This (long) thread provides the important links in terms of the accusations conveyed by Tortoise, I think (a more to-the-point list is here at muccamukk's Dreamwidth account). I included the long thread because I'm in strong agreement with the final person in the chain that, Tortoise's many failings notwithstanding, they provided enough evidence for the SF/F community to judge and respond more appropriately than with a collective blanket of silence punctuated by occasional cavalier or desperate dismissals of the accusers, before the other accusations broke.

In all honesty, I'm pretty appalled by the idea that, well, now there's enough to start talking about it with a modicum of decency and respect but wasn't before, because apparently it was okay to use trans people (who had nothing to do with any of this) to justify defending a cis guy beloved of fandom from very thorough rape accusations.

I particularly feel this way about the parts of the community dedicated to publicizing news and major ongoing discussions that simply said and did nothing. Scalzi's "I'm horrified, might take awhile to process, here's a link to RAINN" personal statement was fine (Vernon's wasn't), and I don't think every random author was obligated to make their own statement as such. But spaces that exist specifically for covering ongoing discussions and news in the SF/F community not saying anything at all—even that the allegations existed—was far worse and really disheartening. So I wanted to link to a discussion that acknowledges how very few people lived up to their stated principles when there was solid evidence against an influential, popular man in their own circles who knows the right catchphrases and terminology.

I was particularly unimpressed with Mike Glyer's handling of discussion at File 770 and, as far as I could tell, Tor only acknowledging the whole thing on their German-language site. The German article seems to be very good, but ... they're based in NYC and Gaiman is an English-language writer, why was their only commentary for weeks shunted away from the English site? US law should absolutely cover acknowledging the existence of the accusations.

There was, let's say, a lot of disappointment to go around, so I'm also grateful for the other women who kept the ball rolling, awful as it is that they a) had similar experiences and b) had to reveal those to get the whole thing taken seriously.

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[anghraine]

It's always weird when (some) people talk about the choice of the half-Elven as if they evolve like Pokémon upon choosing their ultimate fates.

Elros didn't become exclusively human. He chose to retain the gift of Men and to be counted among Men as far as that ultimate fate went, but he remained a half-Elf. He didn't gain a beard (even descendants as remote as Aragorn, Boromir, and Faramir can't because of Elros) or most Mannish qualities he didn't already possess and he lived half a millennium.

Elrond chose to be counted among Elves in terms of immortality, but he isn't exclusively an Elf. He's described as both Elf and Man, and as the eldest of Aragorn's people. Elrond's marriage to a full Elf produces peredhel children. Two of them are given names signifying Elf+(human)Man, names which Tolkien translated as "Elf-knight" (in Númenórean Sindarin) and "Elf-Númenórean." Elrond's sons are always distinguished from Elves in LOTR.

Arwen doesn't morph into a human woman when she swears her vows with Aragorn; she still looks like f!Elrond and ageless years afterwards, and she would be very long-lived even if you only counted her married life. She is probably the most emphatically Elvish of any peredhel, but she's still a peredhel. Elwing and Eärendil are, too. Peredhil are peredhil are peredhil.

[anghraine]

I have quite a bit of sympathy for people with minor pet peeves that actually impact them in some way—you know, fandom hot takes that are trivial annoyances in the grand scheme of things but inescapable, or unpopular food preferences that aren't that important to them but a bit of a pain to access, or that kind of thing. It doesn't have to be a serious and profound objection to be understandable; grumbling about things other people consider trivially unimportant is like, my whole deal.

..........but.

I don't know if it's just getting older or what, but I'm increasingly puzzled by discourse about things that other people are doing away from you and which as far as I can tell, don't concern you in any way.

Like, the poll about people having insufficiently productive hobbies was annoying on a lot of levels, but it was also confusing, because I'm unsure why anyone would even care about other people making things or simply appreciating things with their leisure time. Like, I think the assumption that it's objectively healthier and perhaps even necessary for people to do arts and crafts is weird in itself, but why would anyone expect a bunch of strangers on the Internet to meet their personal standards of leisure productivity, or even care?

I feel kind of similarly about the whole "play a different game" thing people do wrt total strangers bending D&D 5e to suit their story rather than finding the optimal fit for their group's story via a different system. If their DM is pressured into it because the players refuse to learn another system (or 5e itself), that's one thing (though still really a problem for groups to navigate for themselves). But if it's just random strangers having fun with the system, the DM enjoys bending 5e to their will, and someone just happens to mention online that their group is fiddling around with it, why is it such an affront? How is some other group you don't know "playing D&D wrong" your business at all?

In a weird way, it kind of reminds me of how people who don't read fanfic go on rants about what's wrong with fanfic and how bad it is for people to read it (90% of the time their gripes are really just about genre romance tropes, let's be real, but they don't have the guts to go after romance the way they used to). Like, even if anti-fanfic stereotypes were true (and I'd argue that broadly they are not) and people are just being lazy readers, so what? Why do you feel the need to share your opinion about fanfic-reading degenerates you don't actually know and whose habits are none of your concern? Who made you god of hobbies?

I don't know, I do find these kind of pseudo-concerned, vaguely elitist pearl-clutching posts annoying, but mostly I find them puzzling.

[anghraine]

thatinsufferableb-st-rd said:

@anghraine so i have read the books multiple times and am an avid fan of the movies. I enjoy both for what they are. I think the main difference is that Peter Jackson was very open about what they chose to cut and why from anything I've ever seen. They even have Sam give a nod to the book readers by saying "by rights we shouldn't even be here". No I'm not happy about what they did with Faramir and Glorfindel got jipped, and I would have lover to have seen Elronds sons but at the end of the day there were acknowledgments of what and why. Rings of Power to me has always come off as hiding from any criticism by using the shield of "well if you don't like it it's because you don't like POCs in it". To which I genuinely could not give a fuck less, like there are so many branches of elves that went different ways so that could make sense within what Tolkein established. But don't hide behind that when your writing is just "Sauron is evil. We know. And we know she knows. But we have to make it seem like she's the only one who Has A Clue so we must all try to shoo her off to make a plotline"

@lesbiansforboromir has already correctly and politely pointed out that you are doing the very thing we were criticizing in that post—intruding on ROP fan discussion to unfavorably contrast the show to the Peter Jackson films, while also applying a degree of scrutiny to ROP that the Jackson films are rarely subject to in a remotely comparable way and could not bear. Frankly, @lesbiansforboromir is nicer and more restrained than I am about this, but you chose to tag me as well, so I'll also respond.

We (lesbiansforboromir and I) were talking about being excited about costuming in S2 of ROP and disliking the fandom meltdowns over ROP's costuming looking (somewhat) different from the films' aesthetic. Since it had already come up in their discussion, I added that I'm not convinced by the anti-ROP contingent framing their seething hatred of the costuming and design as just caring so much about fidelity to Tolkien's vision. I pointed out that Tolkien fandom broadly cares far more about their preferred, film-influenced aesthetics than Tolkien's actual descriptions and gave some specific examples of this.

There's been a lot of talk, for instance, about how the universally long, flowing hair for Elves preferred by the fandom and used in the films is actually totally canon according to Tolkien even if it's rarely mentioned in LOTR proper. This is inaccurate. Galadriel's brother Aegnor is typically depicted in the fandom/film-preferred style rather than per Tolkien's description of his hair as "strong and stiff, rising upon his head like flames" (indeed, in general neither Aegnor nor anyone else is ever depicted this way, and this description rarely shows up in the lists of "no it's about ethics in adaptation" Tolkien hair quotes).

Tolkien repeatedly describes Elvish, peredhel, and Dúnadan women as wearing their hair bound up in braided coiffures with jeweled hair pieces/nets rather than loose and flowing à la the films and the fandom. Nobody cares, any more than they care about Tolkien's description of Arwen's clothing as soft, grey, and noticeably devoid of ornamentation apart from a belt and netted cap (i.e. the opposite of her highly elaborate film costuming and typically loose, unbound, uncovered hair in the films and most illustrations).

Meanwhile, my fave Faramir's hair is nowhere near long enough in the films or most art to mingle with Éowyn's as Tolkien describes. It's usually also depicted as blond, reddish, or brown rather than black as in the book; in Tolkien's LOTR, all described Gondorians have dark or black hair, with the only difference in coloring being that some Gondorians are dark-skinned and some are pale. Again, almost nobody in the fandom cares about this when they're going on about costume design and casting to reflect Tolkien's vision, and male Gondorians are overwhelmingly depicted with short or shoulder-length hair in the films and in Tolkien illustrations.

Popular depictions of Gondor, including the Gondor of the films, very rarely reflect Tolkien's description of Gondor's aesthetic as similar to ancient Egypt, the Byzantine Empire, and the Roman Empire. Film Gondor has, at most, extremely vague allusions to Byzantine architecture amidst the general and deliberate westernization of Gondor's design—as just one example among many, Tolkien's explicitly Egyptian-based design for the royal crown of Gondor is converted to a generically western European-style crown in the films and overwhelmingly in the fandom.

I then pointed out that it's been very noticeable that ROP haters tend to have a powerful double standard wrt fidelity when it comes to the Jackson films. For over 20 years, most film fans have been constitutionally incapable of tolerating even slight criticism of the films without jumping in to defend their greatness and condescendingly explain the most basic elements of adaptation. (Yes, we know film is not the same medium as text, we know changes are part of adaptation to another medium, we all know that, we all know that a word-for-word adaptation would suck and never be made, this is not new information and does not make the PJ films' every choice a good one.) Yet most film LOTR fans who vocally despise ROP display none of the charity towards ROP that they demand for the films (demand even from someone like Christopher Tolkien, a dead man the entire fandom is deeply indebted to, whose dislike of the films still leads to regular attacks on his character from Jackson film stans).

This hypercritical yet hyperdefensive tendency in the fandom is neatly illustrated by the fact that you responded to a conversation about the double standards in evaluations of ROP's costuming vs the films' to go on about how ROP is objectively bad for reasons entirely unrelated to costuming, how you're totally not racist (something nobody was talking about), and to quote you directly, "Like the show was just Bad." Truly, an incisive critique. Meanwhile, your concessions with regard to the Jackson films are mainly about extremely minor and defensible omissions like removing Glorfindel and the sons of Elrond rather than the serious and fundamental problems that lesbiansforboromir and I have with them, or even the ways they do pretty much the exact same things you're lambasting ROP for.

I mean, if we're going to talk about action hero Elves in ROP vs the Jackson films, what about the action hero-ification of Legolas in the films? He was described by Tolkien himself as the Fellowship member who accomplished the least, so super badass battle-skateboarding Legolas hardly represents fidelity to Tolkien's vision. Why should that get a pass while film-stanning ROP haters seethe about ROP!Galadriel being too special, even though Tolkien described her as one of the most special Elves to ever live and specifically as remarkably athletic and insightful?

Meanwhile, film Gimli is reduced to comic relief, the only dwarves taken seriously are conventionally hot ones in The Hobbit films, and Frodo's expressions of strength and fortitude are consistently removed to glorify other characters. Film Gondorians were deliberately designed to seem like useless tin soldiers (which they are in the films, as well as whiter and blonder than Tolkien wrote them) rather than the physically imposing and highly effective fighting force of the book. ROP imagining Elvish rituals upon approaching Valinor that aren't based in Tolkien canon but don't directly conflict with it is absolutely trivial compared to the films' handling of Denethor and Faramir.

The point is not that you, personally, are not allowed to like the films or dislike ROP despite all this. Many people do love the films, including most of my followers. They do have their strengths, though they are extremely racist and few film fans will acknowledge this without soft-pedaling it in some way (esp, since you brought it up, given the context of the truly unhinged degree of racism that has accompanied much of the broader discourse around ROP).

The point is that film fans who hate ROP are constantly showing up in our conversations to be "well actually ROP is just objectively bad, unlike the films, because the show has failings that are also in the films but it's totally different there because of the contents of Peter Jackson's soul" or whatever. The point is the absolutely glaring and obnoxiously hypocritical double standard of defensiveness about the films and obsessive nitpicking of ROP that leads to ROP haters continually going on rants to ROP fans that are unwelcome, uninvited, and usually (as in this case) irrelevant to what was even being discussed.

[anghraine]

Sometimes I think about looking for SW content and then the first thing I see is "Padmé isn't really Leia's mother because of Breha" which is just ?????? in terms of the Lucas films.

Like, Padmé did nothing that would lead Leia to reject her. Dying is not a renunciation of her motherhood. When Leia is asked by Luke (who invariably identifies their birth parents as his parents) about her "real mother," Leia doesn't correct him but simply responds with a description of Padmé that, contextually, could only come from impressions via the Force that she mistakes as vague memories. Luke does not share these impressions; there is a special tie between Leia and Padmé. There's nothing wrong or improbable about Leia having feelings about that.

Breha is also Leia's mother, but this does not require Leia to reject Padmé nor make it probable for her to do so. And the conversation about Padmé in ROTJ just does not suggest a rejection from Leia at all.

I suspect that Padmé is basically being packaged in with Anakin, whom Leia has very good reasons to reject. But Padmé is not Anakin. Leia does not have to relate to them in the same ways and it doesn't seem at all likely from ROTJ that she does.

[anghraine]

This is probably my most "born and raised in the rural western USA" post ever, but there really is a kind of annoying white dude who shows up in the western states at times, and occasionally even comes from them, who I keep encountering. This kind of guy might not be an obvious bigot (though sometimes he is), but regardless, is one of the most irritating creatures on the face of the planet. Common traits:

goes around in full wannabe western cowboy (21st century edition) cosplay and never shuts up about the plight of the rural poor and his own history of poverty in small town rural America. he understands in a way that these city elites never will.

turns out to be from a comfortable middle-class family in Missoula. (as one example; there are lots of variants of this)

affects an obviously fake drawl in no way characteristic of the actual region he comes from to go with the cosplay.

the hat is pristine, the boots are unscuffed, the belt buckle is ... wrong, and the obligatory truck was bought new and couldn't pull a Toyota out of a mud puddle or make it up a moderately steep hill in half an inch of snow.

assumes everyone he professionally interacts with has no more experience of actual rural life and/or poverty than he does himself, especially if he's in the arts in some capacity. The poors don't care about Art, you see (sometimes stated, usually strongly implied with little comprehension that he's saying it).

relatedly, has intense food+social class opinions and appears to think that cheap food for the proletariat is, like, the Olive Garden.

throws around his red state creds while giving the distinct impression that it's been 20 years since he saw a cow.

the more liberal versions talk a lot about awareness of their privilege and positionality as white men, but don't really do anything to support marginalized colleagues. unless "picking on younger and less powerful men who haven't done anything wrong" counts.

[anghraine]

One thing about the Jackson films that bothers me deeply is that they are uncritically upheld as being full of "positive masculinity." Excuse me? This is the series that has Faramir ordering his men to beat Gollum, Aragorn cutting off the Mouth's head, & Gandalf beating up Denethor on multiple occasions (& kicking him into the pyre!). Sam's meanness toward Gollum, while understandable, is never questioned as it is in the book. Frodo is delusional to pity Gollum. Killing is fun, & mercy is silly.

Belatedly, I do agree. I get that the Anglophone media landscape can feel so saturated by absurdly reductive representations of masculinity that what the films do inherit from Tolkien in terms of emotional expression, friendship etc can feel revolutionary. But the films make a lot of minor and major adjustments to transform the story's visions of masculinity to something more conventional and particularly more violent in a way that is often endorsed by the narrative, or at least framed as an understandable if unfortunate exigency of war.

I once pointed out that Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron, an ambassador—however distasteful—is something that essentially operates on the worst kind of superhero logic, a sort of good vs evil righteousness-justifies-the-means thing. It's really glaring when based on a book where the character closest to the author is like "it's one thing, however regrettable, to fight to the death to defend ourselves and our people, but morally, evil deeds beyond self-defense cannot be justified by a righteous cause, not even lying to an orc."

Tolkien's version of the Mouth is an evil Númenórean sorcerer who, while he cannot really contend with Aragorn in a battle of wills, is nevertheless a person of the same kind and general capabilities who chose to serve Sauron. The way that the films use design to literally dehumanize the Mouth, to wholly distance him from the heroes he's literally akin to, and justify straight-up killing him although he poses no personal threat, because he's ugly and evil and (evilly) taunting them so they're mad and it's cool—yeah. It's not really that far removed from Gandalf clobbering Denethor being framed as a bit comedic and a bit cathartic, and seems part of a pervasive ethos of the films that seems to have completely fallen out of discussion of them.

I think we especially see this with the handling of not just my main faves, but Frodo, who really suffers in this more conventionally masculine framework. I often felt like the films want the real protagonists to be Aragorn and (to an extent) Sam, and Frodo feels a bit like dead weight from fairly early on. Adorable dead weight, but still, Tolkien's Frodo especially feels like a challenge to this kind of narrative ethos that the films are just not really up to handling.

It's not that everything about masculinity in the films is Terrible Actually, but I do think there are some unfortunate patterns like the ones you mention. And I'm constantly being recommended videos and posts about Aragorn (or others, but mostly Aragorn) as this unproblematic ideal of masculinity where I'm just ... yeah, no. He is interesting to me, including in the context of masculinity specifically, but I absolutely cannot buy the ideal positive masculinity thing.