ENGL 307 A: Critical Approaches to Tolkien

We all know that Middle-Earth is a sausage fest. But what would happen if you flipped all the genders? Could Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings still work as well if you replaced Sean Bean, John Noble and Sean Astin with women? This dream cast proves it would. It's... a diversion.

An interesting LotR gender swap!

Building off of Michael's post...this is fascinating...and the metaphor of "Saving the Shire" via surveillance and control seems deeply problematic.  Here's a case where I think Tolkien would fundamentally disagree with the politics of this...

Palantir, that CIA-funded, Silicon Valley creephouse that funnels in humanity's data and spits out... more data... has a lot of secrets. We don't know exactly which parts of the government it works for, or what it does for them. But we do know one of its execs thinks he's locked in a Lord of The Rings battle between good and evil.

http://i.imgur.com/wGaCK7D.png

As can be seen by works form 1984 to LotR, we live in a culture averse to the notion of absolute surveillance. It shouldn't come as a surprise then, that there are people responding negatively to the recent leak of NSA actions. Linked here is a photoshop comparing the US government (and the POTUS in particular) to Sauron. While I think this comparison goes a bit far, I found it amusing given our discussion of what type of government Sauron was representative of.

As a way to base discussion on this image, I was wondering what your guys stance on what level of government surveillance is reasonable. If you had more to say on the issue of Sauron as a parody of some type of government, that would also be great.

I hope everyone is having a productive (and restful) weekend before finals.  Here are your reminders for the coming week:

Here's an extra participation credit critical question:

What is the goal of our class?  Why is cultural studies important?  More specifically, why read and think about Tolkien through these theories and methodologies? 

I wanted to follow-up on the conversation about Card because I think it is worthwhile to ground some of what we practiced all quarter in a few "answers" (as contingent as they may be).  Card wants Tolkien to remain somehow insulated or immune to critique or "pure."  But of course this is deeply fraught (at least in my mind). 

On the one hand, authorial intent arguments can be useful in certain kinds of analyses, in certain scholarly contexts.  But, it is not the only way to read or study literature.  As I said in class, the trouble with over-privileging Tolkien's own words -- be it in letters, interviews, or the texts they write -- is that people's intent change over time.  People's intent are not necessarily "true" just because they are on paper (how much of what you really feel and believe do you put on paper, much less in a letter to someone?).  And what if Tolkien's intent is actually sexist, racist, or problematic?  Does that mean we are to accept the novels then as only about that meaning?  Or why read the novels at all if Tolkien is telling us what they mean and what they are about?  If we as readers are to think nothing for ourselves, then why is the novel important?  If you answer that the reader can generate any meaning, fill in games, imagine how a character might look like beyond what Tolkien himself intended, then the fastidiousness to authorial intent is already broken.

On the other hand, instrumental analyses that simply deploy theory for theory's sake -- for me -- is also problematic.  (Though I would qualify that attempts to read literature for anti-oppression, democratic, and just reasons is always a good thing.)  The point is that there must be a critical argument -- not just one about personal feeling or opinion -- with support and evidence and exigence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9OBf8f55tU

Howard Shore basically ripped the Lord of the Rings theme off this symphonic movement. Crazy stuff.

A screenshot from the game shows the racializing of "good" and "evil" characters in LOTRO.

Constance Steinkuehler claims, “g/Games function as naturally occurring, self-sustaining, indigenous versions of the online community produced by various groups” (98). Is LOTRO truly naturally occurring and self-sustaining when you consider the fact that the MMO has boundaries built in by its developers? For example, one can only make their main character a dwarf, hobbit, elf or man (“good” races) but not “evil” races (orcs, spiders, goblins, etc.). Also, is LOTRO really “bidirectional”, as Steinkuehler claims games are? That is, do players of the game have equally as much influence on the game and their role in it as the game has on them? Why or why not?

May 2013 : Hi there! I've noticed a large influx of people on this post lately, so I thought I'd say thanks for commenting! Due to time constraints I won't be involved any further with this post, but I appreciate that you take the time to share your thoughts on this project! Note 2 : Anon…

The folks are still all white, but it's a cool way to think about casting LOTR!

Here are your announcements and reminders for the coming week: 1) I am revising and simplifying the syllabus for the last week of class (Week 10):

—Monday, June 3, we will meet in Allen Auditorium to for a film screening.  Please be on time.  Attendance is required.  —I am cutting all of the readings this week except for Card’s “How Tolkien Means,” which you should read for Wednesday, June 5. —If you are interested in video game studies, peruse the Steinkuehler and Bogost.  I will simply present their ideas this week and there will be a group critical question posted to the class Tumblr, which the class will be responsible for responding to for extra participation credit.

2) Reminder: Major Paper #3 is due during Finals Week.  The exact date and time will be determined this week, most likely Tuesday June 11 between 10 AM and 12 PM in my office, A312 Padelford.  Please make sure that you are following the directions on the assignment prompt before you turn it in.

3) To simplify and to give you more time to read, write, and concentrate on other work, I would like to amend the Annotated Bibliography/Works Cited assignment and reduce the required number of citations and annotations to five:  http://engl307a.tumblr.com/post/50285666396/cultural-studies-tolkien-annotated-works-cited — these sources must be academic, scholarly, relevant, and not readings from our class.  Format and citation should be perfect for this assignment.  The Annotated Bibliography is also due the same time Major Paper #3 is due. 

If you're not familiar with Cracked.com, they occasionally do criticisms of popular movies where they rewrite the movie into a short script that rips apart the film. They did it with The Hobbit, and I think it does a pretty good job of pointing out issues with Peter Jackson's latest movie, though the humor is a bit vulgar. Sensitive people beware.

In our discussion of the fan on Wednesday, someone brought up the controversy surrounding the ending of Mass Effect 3. In short, the game was released with a particular ending which left a vocal minority of consumers unsatisfied, and the negative outcry convinced Bioware that they needed to alter the ending.  But this issue got expanded even more in the aftermath. A few months after this happened, Bioware continued the trend by inviting anyone to provide input on what they want to see in the next Bioware game, Dragon Age 3. Presumably, Bioware is trying to play it safe after all the negative press surrounding Mass Effect 3. 

This scares me a bit, because it suggests an inversion in the relationship between creator and consumer. The natural relationship is one in which the artist builds a product (say a book) and if the consumer doesn't like it, they don't have to buy it. But the connectivity of today provides much easier access to the producer, who is often just a tweet away. Bioware's handling of these situations gives credibility to the consumer's demand to be an active part of the creative process, as well as a critic on the finished product. Because art is often driven by capitalism, and investors want to guarantee a reasonable rate of return, they want to ensure the success of their investment by communicating directly with consumers about their desires. 

Consumers now have more power than ever, which isn't necessarily a good thing. What if J.R.R. Tolkien had written an unsatisfactory end to LOTR? Do fans have the right to complain about it to the point where he should release an alternate ending? Fans now feel entitled to the individual ending that they want, as if the creator owes them something because they are fans, creating a toxic relationship between the two. Bioware's decision to ask fans for advice just gives their sense of entitlement legitimacy.

Since we're talking about fandom and fantasy this week: http://www.annextheatre.org/2013-season/guest-productions/accio-burlesque-a-burlesque-tribute-to-harry-potter/