Myth vs novel

[ArnoleIstari]

Firstly I am not a Literature major, my inclinations lie more towards the philisophical and psychological, so if I'm off point here, please let me know!

I was listening to the discussion on Ender's Game and Dr. Olsen made reference to the fact that "i am more interested in thinking about the role that these characters have in the story....not trying to imagine them as if they were real people...as if in reading about this character I'm trying to understand another fully realized human being. But rather to see the characters as...what they think and what they do and the part that it plays in the story that we're given"(Episode 1, Ender's game 1:04:00-1:04:34)

This started me thinking about how there seems to have been a shift from story driven narratives to more character narratives, or as I put it, from a myth to a novel setting. There seems to be a universality to myths where you could take any person, plop them down into the story and it wouldn't change very much. I'm thinking about how Roger and Hammerstein's Cinderella had a black mother, white father and asian son, and the story didn't care. As opposed to some of the cast of the new Amazon show saying that they're 'updating' Tolkien's work for the modern era. in one sense I think it shouldn't matter what individual is playing the part, the story should still remain intact. But as Dr. Olsen made mention of, there seems to be a shift in focusing on the characters rather than the story that they are in.

 

[Jim Deutch]

This started me thinking about how there seems to have been a shift from story driven narratives to more character narratives, or as I put it, from a myth to a novel setting.

During the "golden age" of science fiction, there were many stories where character was irrelevant, or nearly so. They focused more on a sense of wonder, on super-technology, and on philosophical issues. I agree there's been a shift towards character-driven stories, but I'm not sure that "race-blind casting" has anything much to do with that.

 

[MithLuin]

Also, while it is true that Tolkien's books are story-driven rather than character-driven, it is not true that therefore the characters become interchangeable. Rather, the character is determined more by the story they find themselves in rather than starting with a character and figuring out what sort of story to tell about them.

In other words - the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are rather different stories. And, at the end of the day, it is no accident that Bilbo is the protagonist of the Hobbit, while Frodo is the character having the adventure in Lord of the Rings. Bilbo is a rather effusive, bubbly, outgoing sort of person, whereas Frodo is a much more quiet, self-reflective type. Bilbo, therefore, takes his journey as a series of adventures...whereas Frodo is undertaking a task to save the world. Bilbo and Frodo are not interchangeable. You couldn't just swap them out and have the same stories.

While The Lord of the Rings has mythic undertones, it's still a novel.

 

[Rob Harding]

A classic approach to a story to find the inherent drama is, once you know the central drama, the narrative hook, major threat, however you approach that, then you work out what kind of person that would be the worst possibly situation for. Who will inherently have the most drama in that situation. That is something Tolkien does very well with his primary hobbit protagonists. Notably Bilbo

 

[Jim Deutch]

Lois McMaster Bujold (author of many science fiction and fantasy novels, most of them multiple-novel series) has written that her writing process often begins with the question "what is the worst thing that can happen to this character?"

 

[Rob Harding]

I care very little about the casting choices and welcome any breaking of the typically white heroes + exoticised villain/love interest/best friend-sidekicks that is sadly typical to a lot of fantasy, possibly in part by a misguided effort to follow a desire in Tolkien to create a fantasy for the ‘modern West’.

However, what Tolkien was indeed doing was myth making. Telling pseudohistories and constructing languages was clearly a first love. It was evident he needed at least a partial framework in pls e before approaching characters. I think most people start with a protagonist, or at least a set piece involve a vague, yet-to-be-defined protagonist and fill the world in from there. Casting back from the narrative now to chart the myths. Tolkien wanted to work from the ground up it seems to feel. I think this is why the Silmarillion is often so unapproachable and less embraced. It isn’t a novel. It’s not a narrative of characters. It’s the incomplete framework. It doesn’t have time for story. It’s got history to cover. You don’t get the long arcs of Bilbo in the same way. And, for much of it, it’s dealing with beings who change over much slower periods of time in barely perceptible ways. It’s less of a ‘good read’. It’s hard to translate because there’s very little character arcs. Tolkien wasn’t that big on these anyway. When Jackson adapted the books he inserted arcs just to give characters some emotional heft and something to feel so in the acts they then performed, audiences could anchor themselves to those emotions. All this to say, I think what Tolkien was interested in and wanted to do was different to what most authors first drive is. Most authors want to tell a great story. Tolkien wanted to build a world. Stories came out of that world. But he’d have needed several lifetimes to get to telling them all as it would’ve taken many lifetimes just to finish building the world.

It’s up to people’s own discretion whether they like the world itself, the stories in that world and the way those stories are told. I think, with Tolkien, they are not all one and the same.

I think you can like the ideas, locales, history, races, creatures and nature of Middle Earth but not be bothered about the heroes from the books. I think you can love the heroes but prefer another’s interpretation and retelling. And I think you can love it all, including the way Tolkien himself told those stories.

 

[ArnoleIstari]

Bilbo is a rather effusive, bubbly, outgoing sort of person, whereas Frodo is a much more quiet, self-reflective type. Bilbo, therefore, takes his journey as a series of adventures...whereas Frodo is undertaking a task to save the world. Bilbo and Frodo are not interchangeable. You couldn't just swap them out and have the same stories.

Could you though have an effusive, bubbly outgoing sort of elf, with all their history, rather than a hobbit go through the same story? At what point does a story eclipse the character? I could easily see the Trials of Hercules told from the view point of a Chinese female, for instance. But the thought comes to me that maybe I'm looking too much at the bones of the soup, as 'On Fairy Stories' warned.

 

[Rob Harding]

Could you though have an effusive, bubbly outgoing sort of elf, with all their history, rather than a hobbit go through the same story? At what point does a story eclipse the character? I could easily see the Trials of Hercules told from the view point of a Chinese female, for instance. But the thought comes to me that maybe I'm looking too much at the bones of the soup, as 'On Fairy Stories' warned.

You certainly can take a series of events from another perspective. That’s because a series of events isn’t the true story. It’s why history is told by the victors. Stories are what we connect to. The who and why amongst the how. Telling events from a new perspective is a new story.

It comes down to what you mean about ‘the story’. Could an elf complete the same story beats? No, not really. They would probably not engage in riddles or sneak amongst trolls or combine both of those to speak with a dragon. But could they pick up the dropped gauntlet and go on an adventure to help the dwarves? Maybe, I suppose. Depends on the elf. And dwarves. Would they even approach an elf. But say they did, then sure, you could have a similar story in terms of A-Z but all the points in between might be squiggly. What you don’t get is the real story. The meat of the tale. You don’t get Bilbo. You don’t get a quiet stay at home respectable hobbit (but one of Tookish ancestry with a secret yearning for adventure) leaving his hole and going on a journey, all the while with one eye back on his cosy hole, becoming a hero and returning changed. That’s what you don’t get by having the right hero for the tale. You don’t get choice and agency. If you can drop another character in and the story is unchanged, you don’t have a character you have a cypher, a stand in. A figure around which plot happens but who has no story of their own or reason to be there. And something is lacking. You shouldn’t read a story and think ‘why would they do that? That doesn’t make sense for them?’ We should know somewhere that ‘yup, that’s what’s they’d do’ even if we hate it or think it’s the wrong choice. Bilbo makes choices we might know could (and do) come back to bite him. But they are very much Bilbo’s choices. It’s his story.

 

[Haerangil]

Are we talking about myth and novel or about colorblind casting?

If the 1st... some of what JRRT wrote was intended as myth, in the beginning! Later he wrote what was intended as childrens book , returned to myth bit ended up writing a myth infused novel.

2nd i do not believe in.Theres no such a thing as colorblindness in a not-colorblind society, as much as people convince themselves to be colorblind.

But it has serious effects on stories that are history for example... i was watching a british tv show where there were a lot of black characters around, also among nobility. That DID exist in history, as much as there were lower class people going about in the harbours... but it was not like these were very accepted.They still were talked about badly and often treated different because they were... well black. That TV show completely ignored the existence of historical prejudice because of skin complexion... that is a worrying development in my opinion.You cannot abolish current racism or say, ethnical stereotypes, by abolishing history.

What may or may this have to do with Tolkien writing myth or novel? How do i interpret, for example, the Numenoreans history with the people of Harad, whom they colonized and enslaved and scarifecd their dark temple... it was not about skin color per se but the story describes different cultures for sure. To me that is more novel than myth, even if it was not even novel but only outline.

 

[Rob Harding]

Are we talking about myth and novel or about colorblind casting?

If the 1st... some of what JRRT wrote was intended as myth, in the beginning! Later he wrote what was intended as childrens book , returned to myth bit ended up writing a myth infused novel.

2nd i do not believe in.Theres no such a thing as colorblindness in a not-colorblind society, as much as people convince themselves to be colorblind.

But it has serious effects on stories that are history for example... i was watching a british tv show where there were a lot of black characters around, also among nobility. That DID exist in history, as much as there were lower class people gping about in the harbours... but it was not like these were very accepted.They still were talked abput badly and often treated different because they were... well black. That TV show completely ignored the existence of historical prejudice because of skin complexion... that is a worrying development in my opinion.You cannot abolish current racism or say, ethnical stereotypes, by abolishing history.

What may or may this have to do with Tolkien writing myth or novel? How do i interpret, for example, the Numenoreans history with the people of Harad, whom they colonized and enslaved and scarifecd their dark temple... it was not about skin color per se but the story describes different cultures for sure. To me that is more novel than myth, even if it was not even novel but only outline.

I take issue with 'colourblind casting' as term. I don't think it's colourblind. I think it's actively not colourblind. It's not hapharzardly not seeing colour. It's choosing to acknowledge society and casting people into those roles. I don't think that chat entirely belongs here but wanted to just jump in on the point and talk about where it may intersect with myth but also, probably another place to talk about it if people really feel it needs to be done. You're example of, what I suspect is Bridgerton, is clearly a choice. It's a stylized show which isn't making attempts to create a one-for-one society across the board. It's clearly alternate history/fantasy. That's an active choice not 'colourblind casting'. I find get a skin-prickle when people have an issue seeing this kind of stuff on TV, especially without considering context. I have no issue with it.

I do think when it comes to modern interpretation its perfectly valid to look and see areas in the original text that may not be pleasant to digest in today's society. And that is fine. That has always happened. With every myth of bit of folklore ever told. Stories evolve.. Tolkien drew from and evolved myths to form his own. It's what they do. Just because we know a single author, I don't think that affects it. Nobody is perfect. And there may be areas that could be developed. And people adapting will naturally want to. And should be expected to. Fleshing out the cultures Tolkien didn't focus on to prevent them being two-dimensional stereotypical stand-ins for other cultures is a great call that we've done in SilmFilm. The only instances of 'colourblind casting' I can see from trailers so far are black actors playing specific hobbits, elves and dwarves. I legitimately don't understand why those instances cause an issue and would earnestly welcome an explanation as it's something I can't wrap my head around at this time. But again, I think that conversation is better suited to another thread.

 

[Odola]

The only instances of 'colourblind casting' I can see from trailers so far are black actors playing specific hobbits, elves and dwarves. I legitimately don't understand why those instances cause an issue and would earnestly welcome an explanation as it's something I can't wrap my head around at this time.

For me it is the "lack of explanation" - the randomness of it.
Tolkien was seldom random.
I have seen opinions like "making the inhabitants of ME look like those on the streets of modern New York".
This feels out of place and out of time.
Tolkien peoples had generations-long family trees and backstories.

We know from Tolkien elves to be pale - this makes sense as they were originally people of the stars - which means at least semi-nocturnal = actually: "crepuscular".
And dwarves are also not known for travelling the deserts, savannas or jungles of the South.

Elves and dwarves displaying human-like skin colour variation implies them having had some human ancestors further back in time.
While this would theoretically possible this would have been a big deal with some big stories behind it. And exactly those stories seem lacking.

E.g. Arondir having some human ancestors long ago would normaly make all their mixed descendants mortal, as such there would be a need of the Valar themselves granting an exception for them to be elvish. This would mean his family's story would be known about and he should be a big deal, not a random soldier.

So the change of his appearance away from the "default elvish look" necessitates imho an explanation in-story - given the stories' fixed frame and in-world rules - an explanation that does not seem to have been provided. (BTW. I do love the fact that his eyes are grey in the clips - as they should be).

 

[Haerangil]

I always have defended the existence of darker skinned elves and dwarves... i gave peoples even direct quotes from JRRTs works to support that 1st pretty certain existed and 2nd might very well have existed because we do not know a lot about four of their houses.Traveling in the sun doesn't count, neither does tan.JRTT wasn't into such biology, but his west elves DID develop into western-human like ethnicities after they reached aman , even without a sun, and his western dwarves did too, they did not stay sallow Gollums.After the sun, for elves , dwarves for humans - different rule! Very similar to Hobbits ancestors. Still you have got to give characters some real backgroundstory to work with.

I do not know about Bridgerton,i think i was talking about a different show, however certainly not wuthering heights nor Moby Dick.

My point is there was colonialism, imperialism and slavery in middle-earth and Numenor too, but hardly recent refuge and work migration. And first three things certainly did not exist among Eldar or Hobbits. People can actively ignore such things in casting, but then they wish to show a fantasy world based on an idealised modern USA to feel more comfortable with their own past, not a world with logic and inworld history on its own. That on the other hand very much IS creating new myth!

 

[Rob Harding]

I think that's vert worth highlighting...it IS creating new myth. By its very nature, it won't be as Tolkien imagined it. That's what the books are. This isn't, would never be and shouldn't be a 1 for 1 translation of book to film. That's true even for 'direct' adaptations of the stories set in the world of ME. It is its own story inspired by the world. It's its own beast. People need to approach it by its own merits. As its own leaf on the tree.

 

[Odola]

I think that's vert worth highlighting...it IS creating new myth. By its very nature, it won't be as Tolkien imagined it. That's what the books are. This isn't, would never be and shouldn't be a 1 for 1 translation of book to film. That's true even for 'direct' adaptations of the stories set in the world of ME. It is its own story inspired by the world. It's its own beast. People need to approach it by its own merits. As its own leaf on the tree.

Than imho it should create a myth for modern North America. Like The Wizard of Oz did in its time - that was a honest aproach. It did not need to transplant Robin Hood into the Appalachian, it invented something of its own. By the way - is " The Wizard of Oz" even a novel in the sense discussed here?

.JRTT wasn't into such biology,

Would argue with that statement, Tolkien recounted several time the childbearing ages of elven charaters to find a way to make it posssible for his couples to have children when they did in his stories - he clearly did care about biology - and specifically the reproductive one - and the inheritance of certain traits like eye and hair-colour does play a - maybe not very important, but consistant - role in his stories.

 

[Haerangil]

Allright. Then the two trees light clearly created melanin, just like real sunlight.

 

[Odola]

Allright. Then the two trees light clearly created melanin, just like real sunlight.

😎 Would that not make the Vanyar the darkest-skinned ones?

 

[Haerangil]

Yes, wouldn't it? Except if they're natural albinos.And then why do both other houses have mostly dark hair? So biology in this sense... i doubt it!

As for modern mythmaking: but of course they can adapt Tolkien the way whatever they like and use some of his fragments for modern mythmaking! But then again they cannot complain if other people do not recognize what they do as Tolkien anymore. That is just plainly relatable.

 

[Rob Harding]

Than imho it should create a myth for modern North America. Like The Wizard of Oz did in its time - that was a honest aproach. It did not need to transplant Robin Hood into the Appalachian, it invented something of its own. By the way - is " The Wizard of Oz" even a novel in the sense discussed here?

Sure. And people have. Lots of films and stories exist that are comments on modern North America. But this is an adaptation. It's apples and oranges. There are obvious reasons to adapt a property. The fact amazon literally spent billions speaks to the reasons. To suggest an adaptation shouldn't exist because it changes source material doesn't really get to the route of why adaptations even happen. Wizard of Oz was also in fact itself a massive commentary on modern America of its day filled with allegory. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Middle Earth doesn't.

As for modern mythmaking: but of course they can adapt Tolkien the way whatever they like and use some of his fragments for modern mythmaking! But then again they cannot complain if other people do not recognize what they do as Tolkien anymore. That is just plainly relatable.

And that's my point really. There will be similarities and differences. Some will hold true to the source material and other things won't. It all lies with the viewer to decide if they enjoy the differences or not. And so we wait to see.

 

[Odola]

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Middle Earth doesn't.

Of course. But the thing is Middle Earth's context stretches from Eurasian late Paelolithic to Western-European late Middle-Ages with some Middle Eastern theology and Mediteranean myth like Atlantis thrown in. Nothing there is about modern American cultural sensibilities - those do not really fit the mix - as such they do stick out too visibly from the fabric of the tale. Either you need great artistry to fit them in seamlessly into the old fabric or you just leave them out - a far safer road.

 

[Rob Harding]

Of course. But the thing is Middle Earth's context stretches from Eurasian late Paelolithic to Western-European late Middle-Ages with some Middle Eastern theology and Mediteranean myth like Atlantis thrown in.

Nope. That's not it's context. That's the inspiration for the initial text not the context of the world. Sorry for drawing a line between the two but I think it's important to do so. So, I guess not sorry lol But yeah. That isn't in-world context.

Either you need great artistry to fit them in seamlessly into the old fabric or you just leave them out - a far safer road.

I don't think black people existing is a modern American cultural sensibility. Regardless, the hope is that ANY changes are incorporated with great artistry. Because we all want good art.