Episode 2
Special guest: KnewBetta (TikTok) @knewbettadobetta
Topics:. Parentage of Gil-galad
Knewbetta gave an excellent overview of the two main versions - published Silmarillion son of Fingon, or other sources son of Orodreth (son of Angrod). Both he and Corey Olsen prefer the son of Fingon version for the legacy that leaves Gil-galad...he is the clear heir apparent at the end of the First Age, a scion of kings. The consequences of Gil-galad's lineage on his relationship with Celebrimbor was raised. Knewbetta considers the son of Orodreth option to create difficulties in the Silmarillion story, while Corey Olsen went with that version in the Silm Film adaptation.
Then Corey Olsen invited the exercise of considering the implications of either choice for the character. A Gil-galad who was the son of Fingon was raised to be king, but also kept safe and out of the way. Would he be naturally arrogant, feeling entitled to his role? Would he feel guilty for not taking part in the deeds of the First Age, being kept safe while others died? A son of Orodreth, on the other hand, would have a more complicated legacy, with a weak king for a father and a hothead for a grandfather. His choice as high king would come out of nowhere, and he might have a very different relationship with Celebrimbor and Galadriel.
Speaking of Celebrimbor and Galadriel...
What will their relationship be? Tolkien considered a one-sided romance where Celebrimbor is quite smitten with Galadriel (who still married Celeborn). His willingness to repudiate his Fëanorean legacy is no doubt relevant to how he gets along with Galadriel.
Original characters
The need for the adaptation to invent new characters was established. Fewer than 10 named elven characters in the Second Age, all of them rulers. World building requires some people to rule, that these kingdoms be inhabited!
Of course, while the invention of a character such as Tauriel was necessary for the Hobbit films, that doesn't mean that the story they wrote for her was interesting or any good. But at the end of the day, there was going to have to be an elf in Mirkwood who wasn't Thranduil, the same way there had to be an elf in Rivendell who wasn't Elrond. The named characters needed someone to talk to!
Corey Olsen asked Knewbetta's perspective on the racial diversity of the casting. Knewbetta pointed out that none of the known named characters were cast as anything other than white, showing that the show reserved this diversity for the expanded universe of original characters. He thought this was the right way to go with the adaptation. He has little patience with people who insist that there *can't* be diversity in Middle-earth. There is no Africa in Middle-earth. It's a fantasy world.
Sometimes, people bring up false equivalences. For instance, how would you feel about a white Black Panther or a male Wonder Woman? In those cases, that characteristic is integral to who the character is, and of fundamental importance to the story being told. In Tolkien's world, skin color is seldom described, let alone crucial to the character's identity! More relevant is elf or dwarf or hobbit -that sense of race. But even so, Amazon did not present a dark-skinned Galadriel, but rather an unknown elf who is perhaps from a different place than any character Tolkien described.
Introducing... co-host Maggie Parke!
Maggie Parke started discussing the topic of adaptation with a caution about charged language - the tendency to defend a well beloved work can lead people to react as though a family member has come under attack. And so, terminology such as betrayal, fidelity, bastardization, etc often become part of the discourse. It is important to be aware of such things.
There was also an introduction to the storytelling medium of film, using two examples from the Harry Potter books and films. One was the 'Won Won' teenage romance between Ron Weasley and Lavender Brown. In the book, there were multiple scenes of them being cutesy with each other around the castle. In the film adaptation, a few seconds of her drawing a heart in fogged up glass on the train conveys this. The 'endless camping trip' of the final HP novel was a challenge for readers to get through. An 8 second scene in the film brings out all the heavy hitters to convey as much of that feeling of isolation as possible - the lighting, the framing of the shot, the landscape, the lingering stillness inviting the viewer to really sit with the scene emotionally...all of these cues are telling a story in this medium.
Every reader envisions a scene in a unique way, sometimes radically differently. Even if there are accompanying illustrations or concept art, the actual shooting of a scene requires myriad choices on the part of the director. We have to be aware of the perspective and interpretation that we bring to a text ourselves, which is not exactly the same as what the text says.
Special guest: KnewBetta (TikTok) @knewbettadobetta
Topics:. Parentage of Gil-galad
Knewbetta gave an excellent overview of the two main versions - published Silmarillion son of Fingon, or other sources son of Orodreth (son of Angrod). Both he and Corey Olsen prefer the son of Fingon version for the legacy that leaves Gil-galad...he is the clear heir apparent at the end of the First Age, a scion of kings. The consequences of Gil-galad's lineage on his relationship with Celebrimbor was raised. Knewbetta considers the son of Orodreth option to create difficulties in the Silmarillion story, while Corey Olsen went with that version in the Silm Film adaptation.
Then Corey Olsen invited the exercise of considering the implications of either choice for the character. A Gil-galad who was the son of Fingon was raised to be king, but also kept safe and out of the way. Would he be naturally arrogant, feeling entitled to his role? Would he feel guilty for not taking part in the deeds of the First Age, being kept safe while others died? A son of Orodreth, on the other hand, would have a more complicated legacy, with a weak king for a father and a hothead for a grandfather. His choice as high king would come out of nowhere, and he might have a very different relationship with Celebrimbor and Galadriel.
Speaking of Celebrimbor and Galadriel...
What will their relationship be? Tolkien considered a one-sided romance where Celebrimbor is quite smitten with Galadriel (who still married Celeborn). His willingness to repudiate his Fëanorean legacy is no doubt relevant to how he gets along with Galadriel.
Original characters
The need for the adaptation to invent new characters was established. Fewer than 10 named elven characters in the Second Age, all of them rulers. World building requires some people to rule, that these kingdoms be inhabited!
Of course, while the invention of a character such as Tauriel was necessary for the Hobbit films, that doesn't mean that the story they wrote for her was interesting or any good. But at the end of the day, there was going to have to be an elf in Mirkwood who wasn't Thranduil, the same way there had to be an elf in Rivendell who wasn't Elrond. The named characters needed someone to talk to!
Corey Olsen asked Knewbetta's perspective on the racial diversity of the casting. Knewbetta pointed out that none of the known named characters were cast as anything other than white, showing that the show reserved this diversity for the expanded universe of original characters. He thought this was the right way to go with the adaptation. He has little patience with people who insist that there *can't* be diversity in Middle-earth. There is no Africa in Middle-earth. It's a fantasy world.
Sometimes, people bring up false equivalences. For instance, how would you feel about a white Black Panther or a male Wonder Woman? In those cases, that characteristic is integral to who the character is, and of fundamental importance to the story being told. In Tolkien's world, skin color is seldom described, let alone crucial to the character's identity! More relevant is elf or dwarf or hobbit -that sense of race. But even so, Amazon did not present a dark-skinned Galadriel, but rather an unknown elf who is perhaps from a different place than any character Tolkien described.
Introducing... co-host Maggie Parke!
Maggie Parke started discussing the topic of adaptation with a caution about charged language - the tendency to defend a well beloved work can lead people to react as though a family member has come under attack. And so, terminology such as betrayal, fidelity, bastardization, etc often become part of the discourse. It is important to be aware of such things.
There was also an introduction to the storytelling medium of film, using two examples from the Harry Potter books and films. One was the 'Won Won' teenage romance between Ron Weasley and Lavender Brown. In the book, there were multiple scenes of them being cutesy with each other around the castle. In the film adaptation, a few seconds of her drawing a heart in fogged up glass on the train conveys this. The 'endless camping trip' of the final HP novel was a challenge for readers to get through. An 8 second scene in the film brings out all the heavy hitters to convey as much of that feeling of isolation as possible - the lighting, the framing of the shot, the landscape, the lingering stillness inviting the viewer to really sit with the scene emotionally...all of these cues are telling a story in this medium.
Every reader envisions a scene in a unique way, sometimes radically differently. Even if there are accompanying illustrations or concept art, the actual shooting of a scene requires myriad choices on the part of the director. We have to be aware of the perspective and interpretation that we bring to a text ourselves, which is not exactly the same as what the text says.
Last edited:
