• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Amazon is mutating Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth

His world was one of passion and lore, and he was not a believer in pushing real-world junk and politics into the beauty of imagination and faerie-stories often classified as fantasy.

I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.

The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.
 
I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.

The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.

Indeed, it comes down once again to separating 'hopes and expectations' from 'reality', on two fronts here.

1) - though Tolkien said he detested allegory, his entire works are naught but the battle of good vs. evil expressed in allegorical form. The details are just the window-dressing. We can't really separate the details from the root.
2) - to think that Tolkien's works would remain unsullied by greed and avarice is to live in the ethereal world of 'hopes and expectations' entirely, rather than in "what is".

Mankind is not capable of divorcing himself from the evil that is, in Tolkien's world, Melkor and Sauron. In ours, known by other names.
Both Melkor and Sauron may have been gone, but the evil they wrought (particularly Melkor) remained.

What fascinates me most, is that it seems many are surprised that greed and avarice are now at last coming to the fore, as the 'protective spells' that prevented them in the past are waning.
 
I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.

The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.
There is a difference between Putting interpretations and Pushing them. This is the difference between Applicability and Allegory.

Yes Amazon and others are indeed going all out to make as much money as they can. But the "investors" are, at best, second in line. As for Tolkien estate "was always going to be up for a cash grab" I think you have failed to note how much cash has not been grabbed. Things may well be different now but certainly was not always.
 
There is a difference between Putting interpretations and Pushing them. This is the difference between Applicability and Allegory.

True. Allegory presents a scene and a venue. Interpretation translates it into application based on agenda.
 
True. Allegory presents a scene and a venue. Interpretation translates it into application based on agenda.
Applicability allows for interpretation based on agenda and/or experience.

Allegory would be the battles of WWI written into the battles of LotR and Silmarillion.
Applicability would be seeing the Battles of LotR and Silmarillion as any of the real-world battles that a person knows of or has experienced.
 
There is a difference between Putting interpretations and Pushing them. This is the difference between Applicability and Allegory.

Yes Amazon and others are indeed going all out to make as much money as they can. But the "investors" are, at best, second in line. As for Tolkien estate "was always going to be up for a cash grab" I think you have failed to note how much cash has not been grabbed. Things may well be different now but certainly was not always.

I don't think the Tolkien estate itself is getting rich off of leasing rights, though I would be interested to find out what licensing and royalty agreements are in place. The IP itself is, however, just a vessel for making money, and it's why the media megacorps gobble up as many IPs as they can.

I don't think this Amazon series is pushing any serious agendas, aside from the same ones that LotR pushed. Virtually all fantasy adaptations emphasize violence and the spectacle of warfare, which is itself an agenda. Tolkien certainly isn't great because of how he wrote battles, and I certainly don't think he would enjoy how much time is spent on on-screen violence. I think that disconnecting Tolkien's love of the ephemeral and emotional from his work is a much greater disservice than any of the other changes, and it's really from that strain of change that all the rest of my complaints originate regarding the film versions of the LotR/Hobbit and--I am certain--the Rings of Power.
 
Last edited:
I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally.

To this question or rather remark also fits well this note:

though Tolkien said he detested allegory, his entire works are naught but the battle of good vs. evil expressed in allegorical form. The details are just the window-dressing. We can't really separate the details from the root.

Yes, I think it's inevitable that an author will put his worldview into his works if he puts his heart and soul into them. And at the same time, of course, all his life experiences that shaped him come into it.

As concrete examples of negative things, one could mention the trenches in World War I or the disadvantages of industrialization, all of which contributed to his understanding of evil.

As examples of the positive side, one could name the Christian principle of charity and sacrifice. Even though these principles may of course also be deeply rooted in other religions or wisdoms, Christianity, especially (theoretical) Catholicism (which, in my opinion, has long been perverted in its practice, but that's another story...), was his reference.

As examples on the rather neutral side, one could mention his enormous knowledge of languages and European history - and, what is of course particularly relevant for his works - especially mythology.
In addition to his world view and experiences, his knowledge and love of (ancient) English, Germanic, Nordic, Celtic, European and Mediterranean (such as Roman, Greek or Egyptian) myths flows into his works. And not because he considered it better than other cultures, but because it was - in this order - his spiritual and origin home.

To illustrate this with an example related to the series:
This can be seen in his criticism of colonialism and imperialism, as exemplified in the fall of Numenor.
But would it be correct to call this an allegory already?
Great Britain, and of course other former great European powers such as Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc., have been "guilty" in this sense in the past. Today it may be other states, but that will only become clearer later....
Be that as it may, it does not seem to be a singular, real event, but a principle that seems to be the rule rather than the exception for expansionist empires. And perhaps this makes perfect sense and logic in the beginning, before it leads to abuse of power? Could there also perhaps be a point where it decides whether it tips into good or evil?
So it is not an allegory, but a general principle - as Tolkien understood it. Allegory vs. applicability!
If these points are clarified in the series, I would be very happy and could perhaps even forgive much of the insanity that has now already become clear.

Anyway, in addition, one can certainly compare Numenor in particular very well (as Tolkien himself had emphasized) with Plato's Atlantis, which can also be interpreted both real and mythological as well as a spiritual principle and warning.
But even for Atlantis more or less equivalent examples can be found in real mythology, like Hyperborea. And I suppose almost every culture has its own Atlantis. Also in Meso-America (Mayas, Aztecs etc.) there are surely very many counterparts, which certainly often have real bases. And everywhere else, probably.

It seems to come down to how one defines and interprets the word "allegory."

Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary ‘real’ world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days.

(Tolkien - letter 131)

There is no ‘allegory’, moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all. It is a ‘fairy-story’, but one written — according to the belief I once expressed in an extended essay ‘On Fairy-stories’ that they are the proper audience — for adults.

(Tolkien - letter 181)

So I would say that Tolkien's works naturally reflect his beliefs, experiences, and accumulated knowledge (interpreted in his individual way).
Nevertheless, he had the ambition to have his mythology and stories reflect universally valid truths. If these now more or less apply to real events, it is not because he had exactly these events in mind, but because reality in one way or another always repeats greater truths in the form of concrete events. So an example from the books can correspond exactly to a concrete example of reality - but then not because Tolkien wanted to refer exactly to it, but because both examples can be traced back to the same basic principle.

At the same time, unfortunately, it is of course also very possible that people, due to certain misunderstandings when reading and/or due to certain ideologies (or even if they read nothing at all, but for them everything is based on previous film adaptations), even interpret the opposite into the original intention or orientation of the author. Maybe also with full intention.
Perhaps this would still be individually possible in the sense of Tolkien under the term "personal applicability" (instead of allegory)?
But if at the same time certain facts are reinterpreted or faded out for ideological reasons, he would turn in his grave, at least if a certain audience reach is achieved to deform his original in a negative way - and Amazon unfortunately has a very big influence on what consumers are supposed to think from their point of view (or from the point of view of their backers)...

The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors

How do you know that's the only one? 😂
Most people believe, as you do, that big corporations are all about making money. In my opinion, however, that is no longer consistently logical, when all the facts are taken into account...
But to carry this out, is unfortunately not allowed here. 😉 However, perhaps in the split-off politics forum? But this no longer seems to exist, unfortunately.
Well, who is informed, knows anyway what I mean. 👍
 
Last edited:
I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.

The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.
This is a very good point. Thanks for pointing that out.
Tolkien did have real-life effects on his writing, and how could he not.

That is quite true. It is oft times all for money, and not as much just for the passion to create in these duller days. However, while they are trying to make money, we get to enjoy these films and things, or critique them, both of which are good entertainment!
 
At the same time, unfortunately, it is of course also very possible that people, due to certain misunderstandings when reading and/or due to certain ideologies (or even if they read nothing at all, but for them everything is based on previous film adaptations), even interpret the opposite into the original intention or orientation of the author. Maybe also with full intention.

Just as much as it is possible for a film company to reimagine an author's intent, the individuals who read a text will also interpret the text through their own lenses of experience. It is the reason that a forum of relatively few people all talking about a relatively small body of work can have such wildly different takeaways of what the literature is conveying.

Tolkien, regardless of his opinions of his own writing, was not infallible, and sometimes I think he was unaware of his own biases. He may not have intended an allegory, and he may have railed against his work being called allegorical, but that of course does not prevent readers from sensing patterns of storytelling within those narratives that have allegorical elements.


How do you know that's the only one? 😂
Most people believe, as you do, that big corporations are all about making money. In my opinion, however, that is no longer consistently logical, when all the facts are taken into account...
But to carry this out, is unfortunately not allowed here. 😉 However, perhaps in the split-off politics forum? But this no longer seems to exist, unfortunately.
Well, who is informed, knows anyway what I mean. 👍

I am very curious to know what these facts are, and what constitutes this unspeakable, political knowledge that you aren't allowed to talk about.
 
but that of course does not prevent readers from sensing patterns of storytelling within those narratives that have allegorical elements.
Perhaps this is what he meant when he spoke of the difference between allegory and applicability?
Patterns are things that recur from a basic principle. Allegories are about exactly one particular thing.

In his view, basic principles were used, not allegories. In any case, I see no reason in simply reversing Tolkien's words without proof.
What else is the purpose of this, if not to justify modern politics or ideologies in contemporary adaptations.

I am very curious to know what these facts are, and what constitutes this unspeakable, political knowledge that you aren't allowed to talk about.

😂
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this is what he meant when he spoke of the difference between allegory and applicability?
Patterns are things that recur from a basic principle. Allegories are about exactly one particular thing.

In his view, basic principles were used, not allegories. In any case, I see no reason in simply reversing Tolkien's words without proof.
What else is the purpose of this, if not to justify modern politics or ideologies in contemporary adaptations.



😂
Applicability is being able to apply things you gather from the books into your own life, and seeing elements of your own life and reality mirrored into the pages of Tolkien's works. In truth, it is a journey. A journey that we need to embark upon to truly see life differently, to see it as Tolkien did.

Allegories to him were a one-to-one ratio of something from our world reflected exactly into the characters of books, making such characters take no more character than their real-life inspirations.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top