Hoping to repeat Peter Jackson’s stunning success with Lord of the Rings, Amazon Prime will soon air the “Rings of Power” also derived from J.R.R. Tolkien. Whether Prime subscribers enjoy the series is yet to be seen, but Tolkien fans worldwide already greet it with cynical derision.
And they have reason. To many Tolkien fans his brilliance wasn’t just a good story, but the objective truths that created it. Tolkien was a leading Inkling, the Oxford literary society dedicated to portraying Christian values in popular culture. The Amazon creators of Rings of Power are about as “Christian” as you’d expect from Hollywood, and the show’s underwriters were sufficiently mercenary to announce their project as “the next Game of Thrones.” To Tolkien fans, that was blasphemy.
John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was once asked which of his major literary works would be his legacy. To the surprise of many, his answer was neither Lord of the Rings, nor the Hobbit, nor his seminal English translation of Beowulf, nor his coursework text of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He cited his role as “assistant etymologist” on the Oxford English Dictionary. Words, especially their derivation, usage and changing meaning, were Tolkien’s greatest fascination.
This explains his very unique writing style. Starting with a single word, like “handkerchief,” he would picture the object, adding detail as the image arose in his mind: was it silk, or wool, plain or monographed? From this mental image he would write a backstory supporting each detail based on “common-sensed and ancient” rules. He knew these “timeless truisms” as Oxford’s resident scholar on Anglo-Saxon and Norse folk history, drawing from oral traditions dating back several millennia.
As a result, Tolkien’s characters have a “realness” about them, as though we know them and recognize friends and neighbors among them. Their interactions are familiar as well. Tolkien didn’t write to astonish or shock or introduce other-worldly bizarreness. Quite the opposite, he wrote about a completely mythical world where friends, enemies, allies, rivals and entire communities behave exactly as time-tested morals and years of sage wisdom would predict.
It is Tolkien’s obsession with underlying “truth” that has fans pessimistic about Hollywood’s ability to faithfully re-tell the Rings of Power. For one, the scripts for this new streaming series, eight episodes in the first season, are based on the flimsiest of source materials: a short appendix found at the end of the Return of the King, giving a history leading to creation of the One Ring.
And also, “objective truth” is not Hollywood’s strong point. Tolkien mastered the obvious without calling attention to it. He chided fellow Inkling scholar, C.S. Lewis, with the observation, “Yes, we get it, the Lion is Christ.” “Allegory is for children” he would say. Tolkien believed complex truths become apparent only when deeply embedded in the ebb and flow of real life.
Lord of the Rings features many un-married men with close male companions. How many are gay? None, or all? Tolkien’s “truth” is to avoid judgement, and beyond that, it’s none of our business.
Contrast this to the “woke” style of modern Hollywood. In today’s scripts it is obligatory to introduce new characters with stereotyped traits making it clear which “representation” the screenwriters just checked. Tolkien would find this both condescending and hypocritical.
Tolkien himself spurned politics, finding Conservative and Labour parties guilty of peddling false simplicities. His fictional history, on which the Rings of Power is based, weaves a far richer tapestry of how strengths and weaknesses, in self or in leadership, can either save or damn a society.
In his review of “The Lord of the Rings,” C.S. Lewis wrote, “As we read, we find ourselves sharing their burden; when we have finished, we return to our own life not relaxed, but fortified.” It’s an enormous legacy for the Rings of Power to uphold. Let us hope that, at a minimum, an attempt is made.
And they have reason. To many Tolkien fans his brilliance wasn’t just a good story, but the objective truths that created it. Tolkien was a leading Inkling, the Oxford literary society dedicated to portraying Christian values in popular culture. The Amazon creators of Rings of Power are about as “Christian” as you’d expect from Hollywood, and the show’s underwriters were sufficiently mercenary to announce their project as “the next Game of Thrones.” To Tolkien fans, that was blasphemy.
John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was once asked which of his major literary works would be his legacy. To the surprise of many, his answer was neither Lord of the Rings, nor the Hobbit, nor his seminal English translation of Beowulf, nor his coursework text of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He cited his role as “assistant etymologist” on the Oxford English Dictionary. Words, especially their derivation, usage and changing meaning, were Tolkien’s greatest fascination.
This explains his very unique writing style. Starting with a single word, like “handkerchief,” he would picture the object, adding detail as the image arose in his mind: was it silk, or wool, plain or monographed? From this mental image he would write a backstory supporting each detail based on “common-sensed and ancient” rules. He knew these “timeless truisms” as Oxford’s resident scholar on Anglo-Saxon and Norse folk history, drawing from oral traditions dating back several millennia.
As a result, Tolkien’s characters have a “realness” about them, as though we know them and recognize friends and neighbors among them. Their interactions are familiar as well. Tolkien didn’t write to astonish or shock or introduce other-worldly bizarreness. Quite the opposite, he wrote about a completely mythical world where friends, enemies, allies, rivals and entire communities behave exactly as time-tested morals and years of sage wisdom would predict.
It is Tolkien’s obsession with underlying “truth” that has fans pessimistic about Hollywood’s ability to faithfully re-tell the Rings of Power. For one, the scripts for this new streaming series, eight episodes in the first season, are based on the flimsiest of source materials: a short appendix found at the end of the Return of the King, giving a history leading to creation of the One Ring.
And also, “objective truth” is not Hollywood’s strong point. Tolkien mastered the obvious without calling attention to it. He chided fellow Inkling scholar, C.S. Lewis, with the observation, “Yes, we get it, the Lion is Christ.” “Allegory is for children” he would say. Tolkien believed complex truths become apparent only when deeply embedded in the ebb and flow of real life.
Lord of the Rings features many un-married men with close male companions. How many are gay? None, or all? Tolkien’s “truth” is to avoid judgement, and beyond that, it’s none of our business.
Contrast this to the “woke” style of modern Hollywood. In today’s scripts it is obligatory to introduce new characters with stereotyped traits making it clear which “representation” the screenwriters just checked. Tolkien would find this both condescending and hypocritical.
Tolkien himself spurned politics, finding Conservative and Labour parties guilty of peddling false simplicities. His fictional history, on which the Rings of Power is based, weaves a far richer tapestry of how strengths and weaknesses, in self or in leadership, can either save or damn a society.
In his review of “The Lord of the Rings,” C.S. Lewis wrote, “As we read, we find ourselves sharing their burden; when we have finished, we return to our own life not relaxed, but fortified.” It’s an enormous legacy for the Rings of Power to uphold. Let us hope that, at a minimum, an attempt is made.
