S2 E8 - deliberate deconstruction of heros? Isildur the alduterer

[Ilana Mushin]

Do I think Galadriel self-centred all the way through? In a sense, yes. She is very proud consistently and sees herself as more competent than others. But in S1 she was driven by her obsession to complete Finrod's task and avenge his death. In S2 she has let go of that but is now guilt-ridden about helping Sauron and positions herself as the one who has to 'fix it'. Poppy's speech in Ep8, citing Sadoc about not being able to fix everything - sometimes we just have to start something new, marks also I think Galadriel starting to see that she alone will not fix things. This will temper her pride, I suspect, but not get rid of it entirely.

 

[Odola]

It seems to me that you have a black and white view of characters.

This dependents on what kind of story it is and how near we are to characters, on the focus and perspective. If we have 20-30 characters that we follow then of each only we just see some basic shape of only, as such each need to be reduced to some main characteristics and each must be recognizable as "team good" or "team bed" from afar - like on a soccer stadium. If we focus on 1-3 characters the story has the depth necessary to focus on nuances. If we have a huge cast and each of them is grey, then the whole story become "London in mist and rain" = good only for horror.

[And by the way - why do we keep speak about myself? I am completely irrelevant here. We discuss the show and its characters. We ourselves are not the focus of this discussion.]

 

[Odola]

But in S1 she was driven by her obsession to complete Finrod's task and avenge his death.

And by at the end S1 she is shown to abandon that goal ("to complete Finrod's task and avenge his death") immediately when faced with the first real opportunity to accomplish it (at Sauron's reveal)... Which puts her whole previous professed commitmet to it in question.
It is still unsure what her real motivation is and if she even knows it herself. As such the natural progression in a in-depth story would be to show Galadriel going on some self-finding quest and (re-)define her goals and convince us of them being worthwile endeavours for us to be interested in. But there is not time for that - the plot must go on. As such up to know we still do not know what she really wants in the end (except for her ring), as such we still do not know if what she wants is good and if we should or rally want to side with her or not.

In S2 she has let go of that but is now guilt-ridden about helping Sauron and positions herself as the one who has to 'fix it'. Poppy's speech in Ep8, citing Sadoc about not being able to fix everything - sometimes we just have to start something new, marks also I think Galadriel starting to see that she alone will not fix things. This will temper her pride, I suspect, but not get rid of it entirely.

well, she is shown fto fall from the cliff suddenly becoming a figure of light, without any work or effort to become a better person...

If the show handles Isildur the very same way - he is to be a "toubled youth" the whole way through until he suddenly isn't - as the plot arrived finally at the point in the story that requires him to be the "righteous king" he defined as in Tolkien's meta-story - and Isildur has the same style of "instant transformation" in the show as Galadriel's cliff-fall, or the whole process is not shown at all, but is only just implied to happend "of screen" - then this will be neither believable nor engaging.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Even in Tolkien's work, Isildur isn't a squeaky clean character as he notably doesn't have the will to resist the lure of the Ring (and the Elves, if not Men, regard him as a big screwup). He wasn't even tempted by its power, just that it was pretty, and as weregild for his father and brother.

 

[Odola]

Even in Tolkien's work, Isildur isn't a squeaky clean character as he notably doesn't have the will to resist the lure of the Ring (and the Elves, if not Men, regard him as a big screwup). He wasn't even tempted by its power, just that it was pretty, and as weregild for his father and brother.

The only mortal who could really completely resist it was Sam. And no elf ever took it so none was ever really tested. So no reason to turn Isildur into an adulterer just because he followed RoP'-Cirdan"s advice to Elrond not to dismiss a work for its maker. This attitude cannot be once right once wrong in the very same show.

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

The only mortal who could really completely resist it was Sam. And no elf ever took it so none was ever really tested. So no reason to turn Isildur into an adulterer just because he followed RoP'-Cirdan"s advice to Elrond not to dismiss a work for its maker. This attitude cannot be once right once wrong in the very same show.

Fortunately, as we've established, they haven't turned him into an adulterer. Just someone who makes questionable decisions.

 

[Odola]

Fortunately, as we've established, they haven't turned him into an adulterer. Just someone who makes questionable decisions.

have we?

1. RoP leaves it very vague what Estrid status really is. As such Isildur could very well fit even modern standars of adultery - it has not been contradicted or excluded outright in the story - as it leaves it vague.

2. As I hve demonstrated citing historical sources, Isildur fulfills ancient standards of adultery (Old Testament) or as-bad-as-adultery (ancient Roman Law).

Is is only according to our modern standards - which do not even consider full obvious undeniable adultery a big issue anyway- that he could be considered not an actual aduterer.

And modern standards should not be applied in a Tolkien story anywre far from the 4th Age.

 

[Ilana Mushin]

You are choosing Old Testament and Roman Law somewhat arbitrarily. Why not Viking or Anglo-Saxon, if you think that a human culture in a Tolkien story must follow the law in some primary world context. I would again point out that people kissing/falling in love with people who may be 'betrothed' to another is a human relationship /reaction thing that occurred in ancient times as well.

You are also not taking into account the massive social disruption caused by the turning of Southlands into Mordor, and the mass migration that followed (eg. to Pelargir and other lands around what will become Gondor). While Hagan may be trying to normalise things by building a house, everyone there is essentially building a new society (again, following the wisdom of Sadoc Burrows - some things can't be fixed. They have to be made anew). In this context Estrid's questioning of her feelings both for Hagan and for Isildur (and Isildur for her) seems quite plausible.

 

[Odola]

Why not Viking or Anglo-Saxon,

Because I found no sourcers available. If you have any records of Viking ot Anglo-Saxon family law, please cite them. Btw. Anglo-Saxon would be more 3rd Age (Rohirrim) than 2nd Age. 2nd Age should predate it and as such have stricker mores - as in Tolkien we have a process of gradual moral and cultural decline over the ages.

BTW found something about Anglo-Saxon betrothals and it was a complex legal procedure with a long witness list on both sides and money and land exchanging hands and being pledged, and the woman guardians pledging their kinswoman to the goorm and his family and the groom's family pledging her safety among them - a big deal. But have not found yet anything have it was handled when it was broken when not resolved beforehand.

still very interestin, if confusing read:

"or it may be preferable to see a two-stage process here, a formal betrothal agreement ([be-]weddung), followed at some later date by a marriage ceremony (gyft)."

Be wifmannes beweddunge: Betrothals and Weddings in Anglo-Saxon England | Anglo-Saxon England | Cambridge Core

Be wifmannes beweddunge: Betrothals and Weddings in Anglo-Saxon England - Volume 49

www.cambridge.org

 

[Haerangil]

sounds a bit like a very constructed and forced explanation. I really just think the authors weren't thinking that much, they want to tell a "modern story", not deconstruct or construct really anything.They merely do not have much understanding for the archaisms of Tolkiens world, which include, like it or not, a very conservative and catholic understanding of morale. The authors don't really have it, don't share it, and being Mormons, probably do not even understand it well. So the whole world they paint, it feels a way off and inconstistent.

 

[Odola]

sounds a bit like a very constructed and forced explanation. I really just think the authors weren't thinking that much, they want to tell a "modern story", not deconstruct or construct really anything.They merely do not have much understanding for the archaisms of Tolkiens world, which include, like it or not, a very conservative and catholic understanding of morale. The authors don't really have it, don't share it, and being Mormons, probably do not even understand it well. So the whole world they paint, it feels a way off and inconstistent.

Well, telling a "modern story" includes deconstructing old virtues and heroic values so even if it not completely conscious or deliberate, it might still be included.

And Tolkien's "morale" that he follows in his literature is not wholly contained only in "conservative and catholic" - it does follow the far more strict "romantic ideal" = that one falls in "true" love only once and that romantic love must be eternal to be true and that it transcends death and lovers are lovers still after they die - the Catholic position is here far more pragmatic, and romantic and marital love is restricted to this world only, and not to the next, and marriages are considered naturally dissolved by the death of one or both partners and are not carried over into the world to come, allowing for widowers to remarry without any censure. As such both Luthien's and Arwen's deaths of despair after their spouses' deaths are far from the Catholic ideal, but do follow the "romantic ideal" perfectly.

Insofar Isidur entangling himself with a woman who had previously broken her lover's bonds to another is as ulikely as Turin accepting Findulas' after she has deserted Gwindor. It goes contra the romantic ideal that Tolkien followed strickly for his Middle Earth. Even the widowed Denethor did not remarry in Tolkien, neither did Theoden nor even Lobelia Sackwille-Baggins. But this ideal has to be upheld in Tolkien's work should Luthien's and Arwen's choices keep making sense.

 

[Haerangil]

quite true... in love Tolkien is a romantic i agree.In other things as well. They probably do not understand romanticism either, they must think of it as corny and outdated.

That notion on modern needs to deconstruct the older ideal to be modern...
don't you need to actually understand a thing to "deconstruct" it? I still think deconstruct is the wrong term here. I still think what they do is putting modern sensibilities into a distinctive non-modern setting without even realizing there is any problem.

It's like Poppy using the word "okay".

Whoever wrote that dialogue wasn't thinking.

 

[Odola]

don't you need to actually understand a thing to "deconstruct" it?

imho that is only partially necessary, you can just copy people who did it beforeand who understood it by just following their steps, just as you just follow a YT video to to disassemble and reassemble an engine without much understanding what you are doing and why...

 

[Haerangil]

but doesn't that make you an imitator, not a deconstructor?

 

[Odola]

but doesn't that make you an imitator, not a deconstructor?

well, if you take something apart, you are a "deconstructor", whether you know what you are doing or not...

 

[Haerangil]

okay. The Headline for the thread you chose was "deliberate deconstruction" and i don't think they are really aware they're doing such a thing. I doubt they actively understand the difference, they think they "improve" the story by inserting more modern elements to it. I think they do not like either the conservative nor the romantic undertones of Tolkiens writings, but i don't think they fully understand them. They think they were a personal eccentricity and weakness of JRRT but not really important for the general work of art. That is a misconception.

 

[Odola]

okay. The Headline for the thread you chose was "deliberate deconstruction" and i don't think they are really aware they're doing such a thing.

A valid position to have and completely on topic.

I doubt they actively understand the difference, they think they "improve" the story by inserting more modern elements to it. I think they do not like either the conservative nor the romantic undertones of Tolkiens writings, but i don't think they fully understand them.

But imho it is difficult to understand how anybody could think a story which lives and dies by its deliberate anti-/a-modernism could be improved by modernizing it. A very counterintuitive approach, for sure.

They think they were a personal eccentricity and weakness of JRRT but not really important for the general work of art. That is a misconception.

Indeed I do agree about that. In some of its aspects his work seems even to share some approaches and ideas of the concurrent Neo-romanticism. Not a work suitable for modernization without destroying its delicately balanced core of gossamer-like finely-spun elvish-like sub-creative magic.

 

[Haerangil]

I have problems understanding many things, not only decisions of that shows writers and runners but also the position of fans who like the show and claim it is good. i mean -fine for them if they like it- but to me... i am just puzzled. I can 't get behind it.

 

[Odola]

I have problems understanding many things, not only decisions of that shows writers and runners but also the position of fans who like the show and claim it is good. i mean -fine for them if they like it- but to me... i am just puzzled. I can 't get behind it.

Indeed. It makes me uneasy to witness how many logical breaks many can seemingly tolerate. Hopefully not in other areas...

 

[Haerangil]

the thing is: every fictional world has its own rules of logic. Few are very realistic but that is totally fine as long as it works on a narrative level, it has to be able to convince us it makes sense within the story, if it can convince us of its own fictional inner logic.

I do not recognize much of that in the show, but many people seem to be fine with it, i'm really trying to understand why is that so.Far more than i'd try to rationalize the show itself.

I really am puzzled and quite a bit confused.I mean this is not Dungeons and Dragons nor is it Marvel... it does feel like Star Trek Discovery, they also share writers. Fallout or Dune worked pretty fine with me as adaptions, even maybe Foundation, though on a different level, that was a similarly VERY loose and free adaption itself. But so is Bladerunner and that works perfectly fine with me.