If we needed any better example of the dumbing-down of modern culture, we can’t go past The Lord of the Rings and its adaptations. Tolkien’s book is a literary masterpiece that virtually created an entire genre. The Peter Jackson movies are exciting action films which, by their own admission, stripped out voluminous material in order to appeal to a modern cinema audience. However, the Amazon Rings of Power television series is an abomination of bad writing and terrible direction.
The most egregious bastardisation of Tolkien’s work by the TV series comes from Amazon’s demands that the series “reflect” and “represent” 21st century American (left-wing) culture and values. Even Jackson’s films can’t escape criticism on that measure: as son and literary executor Christopher Tolkien saw it, “They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25.”
Thank God neither Tolkien lived to see the Amazon series.
Or read garbage like this:
Like many books that came out in the 1950s, some elements of Tolkien’s work haven’t aged particularly well.
On the contrary, continued best-seller status, half a century later, would seem to indicate that Tolkien wrote a book that continues to resonate generations later.
Except for the sort of cretinous millennials who put their “pronouns” in their byline – and who use words like “problematic”.
And who clearly fail to understand great literature (if they’ve even read it).
Tolkien’s Writing Features Plot Cul-De-Sacs For The Sake Of World Building […]
Random Characters Show Up For A Short Amount Of Time In The Lord Of The Rings
This criticism is only valid if you assiduously ascribe to formulaic ‘rules’ of modern fiction that are tailored more on cinema than literature (three-act structure, plot beats and so on). With regard to the specifics cited (Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel), the critic clearly misunderstands their roles in the novel, which are much more extensive and important than he/him clearly realises.
The Lord of the Rings largely centers on a war, and they are written by a war veteran. Considering these facts, it’s strange that none of the main characters die. Fans of the film adaptations might argue Boromir, but in the books, he was a very shallow character simply meant to show audiences the effect of the ring.
Has this idiot actually read the book? Clearly not, if he claims that Boromir was “a very shallow character”.
More importantly, he omits the most shocking moment in the books: the apparent death of Gandalf. George R R Martin has written that reading that chapter shocked him profoundly and deeply influenced his own writing.
As for the war Tolkien fought, contrary to popular imagination, some seven per cent of British soldiers who served were killed. The Fellowship of the Ring had a much higher attrition rate of 12 per cent of its members killed (it would have been 20 per cent, if Tolkien hadn’t been dissuaded by C S Lewis from killing Pippin at the Black Gate).
Contemporary readers like their principal characters to have agency in their story, and characters who don’t are often maligned. A good example might be Twilight’s Bella Swan, who many readers disliked due to her passive role in the narrative.
In The Two Towers, Merry and Pippin are largely passive characters.
This is a particularly stupid claim. More importantly, his own example contradicts his argument: Twilight was a massive bestseller (whatever its literary merits). The Hunger Games is another mega-successful book series with a passive lead character (for all her action-hero shenanigans, Katniss only ever does what other people tell her to). Clearly contemporary readers are content with passive characters.
Then comes the wokeism.
Because Tolkien was largely inspired by white European history and myths, The Lord of the Rings is not a very diverse series of books. The main cast of characters is all presumed to be white based on the books, and even adaptations of the work reflect this lack of diversity.
And? This is like complaining that Mulan lacks diversity because all the characters are Chinese. Proof that modern left-wing politics makes you stupid.
Some Races In The Lord Of The Rings Are Inherently Evil
In The Lord of the Rings, there are certain races that are only represented by evil characters. The orks, uruks and goblins, for instance, only appear in the form of evil antagonists, leading readers to believe that all members of these races are evil.
This was disputed by Tolkien, who made it clear that the Orcs were perhaps the biggest victims of evil: “the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery”. In the narrative, even Orcs occasionally show positive qualities such as bravery and reject what they see as evil in others, such as treachery (eg Sam’s abandonment of the unconscious Frodo: “Regular elf-trick, that”).
But even that criticism is almost genius-level, compared to moronic claims like this:
While possibly not intentional on Tolkien’s part, there are certain words he chooses to use that, in a modern context, raise a few eyebrows. While Tolkien himself professed to be anti-racist, and there is strong evidence to support he meant this, some of his terminologies were ill-thought-out and have aged poorly.
A clear example of this comes in Chapter 10 of The Fellowship of the Ring when Aragorn is discussing the Nazgul with Barliman Butterbur. The innkeeper says that “[n]o black man shall pass my doors, while I can stand on my legs,” and also refers to the Nazgul using a slur.
“Black” in this case is repeatedly and clearly used to refer to the Nazgul dressing from head-to-foot in black. And “slur”? The only word that could possibly be interpreted thus is Barliman’s reference to “spooks” – which is so obviously a reference to evil spirits that only an illiterate millennial could possibly interpret it a racial slur.
What am I talking about? This is an illiterate millennial we’re dealing with.
Just don’t show him the passage where Aragorn tells Eomer, “No niggard are you.”