YES. Agree 100%. This is a hill I will die on in the fandom. The only thing that makes someone a “true” Tolkien fan is if they enjoy Tolkien (in all its various forms).
I think this is a great take on what fandom ideally should be. I've been in a number of fandoms and you always have a certain percentage of extremists, especially online, who reject certain works and so in turn reject the people that appreciate them. A lot of it has to do with the perceived 'sacredness' of the work, in my opinion. As in, the gatekeepers view how within the property, there are some works that are 'canon' and others that are not. Being a true fan = only respecting the accepted canon and rejecting the unaccepted apocrypha.
"...you might imagine that you are keeping the forces of darkness at bay like Gandalf saying, 'You cannot pass!' to the Balrog at the bridge of Khazad-dûm, but you’re really much more like Gríma Wormtongue whispering, 'They are not welcome here.'” Mic drop! I so appreciate this perspective.
What I always find fascinating about this conversation is Tolkien’s professorial study and the frame story around the legendarium. He studied how stories and language evolve together and how the story themselves shift in retelling.
The legendarium is framed as a found story that he translates. In doing so he adapts certain aspects of language to represent some of the different cultures. But there is another layer in that the story (and the hobbit in particular) are told from the hobbits POV (and Bilbo is not necessarily a reliable narrator). On top of that the histories and legends were translated by Bilbo and the hobbits from secondary elvish and human sources which may be further translations and retelling of the past.
All of this to say is that we don’t necessarily know the “true” events even within the written corpus. The clearest example is the differences between the hobbit and quest for erebor in unfinished tales.
To extend this to the movies and shows, they are simply a retelling of the stories in a different medium. And in any retelling of a story it will change and evolve especially as the language used to tell the story changes (words to words/pictures/sound). While the professor himself may have vehemently disagree with the changes that were introduced, he would have understood that it is natural in the evolution of the story.
So I agree with your fundamental point , we can all appreciate the magic of Middle Earth (in all its various incarnations) and still be fans. We can have preferences and we can point out plot holes: why in the world is Aragon running around with a priceless broken sword in the books?*. But a preference for one version or another doesn’t make you a better or more real fan.
* I used this example as my favorite version (by many leagues) is the books, and yet they are not without their issues.
I agree for the most part. But if your favorite or only Tolkien point of entry is that Amazon abomination (the rings of power) i’mma judge you haaaaard.
Thanks, Josh! Good thoughts. I agree whole-heartedly with your appraisal that we can be critical of adaptations without being dismissive of the fans of those adaptations. Especially when we realize that Tolkien was drawing from legends to weave a new story that would hopefully transcend the pages and take us back to something else. That Final Pathway to Faerie can occur through movies, books, etc. I was hooked by the Rankin-Bass Hobbit. There are many things wrong with it, but if it is truly inspired by Middle-earth that always shines through the flaws. I do think that a natural remedy for this is that any adaptation that is clearly garbage will not inspire people. If people are not drawn to the Good, the True, or the Beautiful through a re-telling, then it will not be recognizable and will be no more Tolkien than the Tolkien Piano Company of the 1800's, which shares the name but not the same legacy.
I appreciate highlighting how damaging gatekeeping is, how antisocial an impulse it is. My entry point to LotR was the film in 2001. Since that, I’ve devoured all of Tolkien’s writing, I read the novel once a year for a decade and the rest of the Tolkien canon in quick succession, so I understand where arguments either way are coming from.
I will say that being a parent and sharing your favorite things with your kids changes this a bit. Case in point: my nine year-old is a massive Harry Potter fan, and I am happy she loves the storytelling, characters, and language. But before she can watch a film adaptation, we read the story with her because we want her to form her own mental pictures and feelings about the narratives and characters. And I say this within a community of other parents who skew either way: NEVER any screens every for any reason or who cares just let them watch stuff and explore and that’s how they’ll learn what’s okay and what’s not okay. That veers a bit away from fandom gatekeeping, but in all things, we try to take the third way.
We dabbled with reading The Hobbit a couple years ago, but my kids were too young for that as a bedtime story (though Riddles in the Dark made a huge impression, and now those riddles get rattled off at the dinner table!). Still, when they’re ready, we’ll dive in. I’m an English teacher, and language, story, and myth are really close to my heart. But there are so many ways to enjoy being a fan and living into story.
A legend is one thing. From the Greek word for "speak." As it is told and retold it is alive, changing, and accessible for many uses. No one really owns it. People refer to these fantasy world characters and events as a "legendarium."
A script is another thing. From the word for "write." Now it is owned by the writer. It is not far removed from "scripture." And normally the last two words of the text are "The End."
The claim of ownership can be challenged--by fans and critics. And it is fair to expect the writer (in any medium) to defend the claim as best he can.
The legend, unfortunately, no longer has a life of its own.
The LOTR films were my introduction to Tolkien’s world. Is that ideal? No. But at this point, I’ve read the books way more than I’ve watched the films.
Thank you so much for writing this! It's something I've experienced in a few fandoms, as well, and I have always found it frustrating when people try to tell other people that they aren't "true fans". I loved your point about how our favorite versions are often the ones we loved when we were 12. I personally get so excited when someone becomes a fan of a thing I like, even if they like different aspects of it or different versions. I have never understood the "you're only a true fan if..." kind of fans.
Great post about the "dark side" of fandom! It's a reminder that I shouldn't judge people based on what they like about a particular piece of lore, but just be pleased they like that lore in the first place.
It's better to have a big tent of people to talk to, then to keep kicking people out. That's extremism.
I had an interesting experience reading On the Road, by Jack Kerouac. When I was 17, I thought On the Road was the coolest book ever. When I re-read it at 32, I couldn't get past the first 60 pages. It read like the overly-poetic ramblings of an alcoholic.
Did I go back and judge 17-year-old-me as a complete idiot? No. I realized I'd changed and matured and that On the Road probably works better as a book to be read when you're a teen.
The evidence that I’m a fan (of Middle Earth, of that galaxy far far away, of Narnia) is the glazed over look I get from non-fans when I speak about these wonderful places. I’m sorry that they don’t understand the joy I have. They think I’m all worked up about a “harmless rabbit.”
Reminds me of something Lewis wrote once, I think it was in "The Inner Ring". Social circles by nature exclude the outside world; but this is a byproduct, not their main feature. When the main purpuse of a circle becomes to exclude, it becomes quite a dangerous thing.
There are some (limited) sense in which distinctions between fans may be useful. A man who likes the Lord of the Rings movies for its mythical element will probably like the books; a man who likes it merely as a summer blockbuster may not. So while both are (properly) called "Tolkien fans", one likes it more for its "tolkienism" than the other.
Or we might make a historical comparison on how the term has evolved. Superheros, for example. A comic book fan in the 1970's was probably more "devoted" than the one that goes to the movies every three months to see the new Marvel movies. The very fact that we apply the same term (a term which originally meant "fanatic") for both is, in itself, interesting.
But all of that would be descriptive, not prescriptive analysis (and are probably better done when we put ourselves outisde of the group being discussed). However, any time someone says "you're not a REAL fan", all he is saying is "you're a BAD fan". Nothing to be learned, only a way to shame others. In that regard, you're completely right.
You've brought up a really helpful point, G. K. I've loved Tolkien's works since childhood but seriously since 1988. For the 12 years before the movies came out, I never called myself a Tolkien fan despite the fact that I was devoted to reading and discussing his works. I think that the concept of fandom has been borrowed from sports and music and TV. Nothing wrong with the word but perhaps the idea of being a "fan(atic)" influences us towards extreme views without realizing it. I'm still vaguely uncomfortable with calling myself a Tolkien fan and I've only just discovered why. I prefer Tolkien enthusiast or Tolkien lover (I know that sounds dated). Here's a deep dive into the psychology of fandomania. https://twotwoone.nyc/the-social-and-technological-evolution-of-fandoms-through-new-media-and-mass-communication/
You can have ideas on which iteration of the loved product is best (if there is more than one version of it), but it's better you keep them to yourself unless you're an academic or a professional reviewer looking at its seriously, or talking in private IRL. Bad-mouthing and gossip-mongering in online forums does no one any favors.
YES. Agree 100%. This is a hill I will die on in the fandom. The only thing that makes someone a “true” Tolkien fan is if they enjoy Tolkien (in all its various forms).
Completely agree!
I think this is a great take on what fandom ideally should be. I've been in a number of fandoms and you always have a certain percentage of extremists, especially online, who reject certain works and so in turn reject the people that appreciate them. A lot of it has to do with the perceived 'sacredness' of the work, in my opinion. As in, the gatekeepers view how within the property, there are some works that are 'canon' and others that are not. Being a true fan = only respecting the accepted canon and rejecting the unaccepted apocrypha.
thank you! And yes, your observations are spot-on. "The sacred texts!" they scream like Luke in The Last Jedi (ironic).
Where’s the celebrate button at? Good on you for writing this!
Haha, thank you! Thanks for reading and commenting!
"...you might imagine that you are keeping the forces of darkness at bay like Gandalf saying, 'You cannot pass!' to the Balrog at the bridge of Khazad-dûm, but you’re really much more like Gríma Wormtongue whispering, 'They are not welcome here.'” Mic drop! I so appreciate this perspective.
What I always find fascinating about this conversation is Tolkien’s professorial study and the frame story around the legendarium. He studied how stories and language evolve together and how the story themselves shift in retelling.
The legendarium is framed as a found story that he translates. In doing so he adapts certain aspects of language to represent some of the different cultures. But there is another layer in that the story (and the hobbit in particular) are told from the hobbits POV (and Bilbo is not necessarily a reliable narrator). On top of that the histories and legends were translated by Bilbo and the hobbits from secondary elvish and human sources which may be further translations and retelling of the past.
All of this to say is that we don’t necessarily know the “true” events even within the written corpus. The clearest example is the differences between the hobbit and quest for erebor in unfinished tales.
To extend this to the movies and shows, they are simply a retelling of the stories in a different medium. And in any retelling of a story it will change and evolve especially as the language used to tell the story changes (words to words/pictures/sound). While the professor himself may have vehemently disagree with the changes that were introduced, he would have understood that it is natural in the evolution of the story.
So I agree with your fundamental point , we can all appreciate the magic of Middle Earth (in all its various incarnations) and still be fans. We can have preferences and we can point out plot holes: why in the world is Aragon running around with a priceless broken sword in the books?*. But a preference for one version or another doesn’t make you a better or more real fan.
* I used this example as my favorite version (by many leagues) is the books, and yet they are not without their issues.
I agree for the most part. But if your favorite or only Tolkien point of entry is that Amazon abomination (the rings of power) i’mma judge you haaaaard.
So you don't agree.
The real 'abomination' is making people who enjoy something based on or related to Tolkien feel unwelcome or like they don't count or belong.
I'm sorry, but I just completely disagree that enjoying or even preferring one adaptation over the other is worthy of being judged.
Thanks, Josh! Good thoughts. I agree whole-heartedly with your appraisal that we can be critical of adaptations without being dismissive of the fans of those adaptations. Especially when we realize that Tolkien was drawing from legends to weave a new story that would hopefully transcend the pages and take us back to something else. That Final Pathway to Faerie can occur through movies, books, etc. I was hooked by the Rankin-Bass Hobbit. There are many things wrong with it, but if it is truly inspired by Middle-earth that always shines through the flaws. I do think that a natural remedy for this is that any adaptation that is clearly garbage will not inspire people. If people are not drawn to the Good, the True, or the Beautiful through a re-telling, then it will not be recognizable and will be no more Tolkien than the Tolkien Piano Company of the 1800's, which shares the name but not the same legacy.
I appreciate highlighting how damaging gatekeeping is, how antisocial an impulse it is. My entry point to LotR was the film in 2001. Since that, I’ve devoured all of Tolkien’s writing, I read the novel once a year for a decade and the rest of the Tolkien canon in quick succession, so I understand where arguments either way are coming from.
I will say that being a parent and sharing your favorite things with your kids changes this a bit. Case in point: my nine year-old is a massive Harry Potter fan, and I am happy she loves the storytelling, characters, and language. But before she can watch a film adaptation, we read the story with her because we want her to form her own mental pictures and feelings about the narratives and characters. And I say this within a community of other parents who skew either way: NEVER any screens every for any reason or who cares just let them watch stuff and explore and that’s how they’ll learn what’s okay and what’s not okay. That veers a bit away from fandom gatekeeping, but in all things, we try to take the third way.
We dabbled with reading The Hobbit a couple years ago, but my kids were too young for that as a bedtime story (though Riddles in the Dark made a huge impression, and now those riddles get rattled off at the dinner table!). Still, when they’re ready, we’ll dive in. I’m an English teacher, and language, story, and myth are really close to my heart. But there are so many ways to enjoy being a fan and living into story.
A legend is one thing. From the Greek word for "speak." As it is told and retold it is alive, changing, and accessible for many uses. No one really owns it. People refer to these fantasy world characters and events as a "legendarium."
A script is another thing. From the word for "write." Now it is owned by the writer. It is not far removed from "scripture." And normally the last two words of the text are "The End."
The claim of ownership can be challenged--by fans and critics. And it is fair to expect the writer (in any medium) to defend the claim as best he can.
The legend, unfortunately, no longer has a life of its own.
The LOTR films were my introduction to Tolkien’s world. Is that ideal? No. But at this point, I’ve read the books way more than I’ve watched the films.
Gatekeeping is never a good look.
Couldn’t agree more!!!
Unless the favorite is The Battle of the Five Armies.
Thank you so much for writing this! It's something I've experienced in a few fandoms, as well, and I have always found it frustrating when people try to tell other people that they aren't "true fans". I loved your point about how our favorite versions are often the ones we loved when we were 12. I personally get so excited when someone becomes a fan of a thing I like, even if they like different aspects of it or different versions. I have never understood the "you're only a true fan if..." kind of fans.
Great post about the "dark side" of fandom! It's a reminder that I shouldn't judge people based on what they like about a particular piece of lore, but just be pleased they like that lore in the first place.
It's better to have a big tent of people to talk to, then to keep kicking people out. That's extremism.
I had an interesting experience reading On the Road, by Jack Kerouac. When I was 17, I thought On the Road was the coolest book ever. When I re-read it at 32, I couldn't get past the first 60 pages. It read like the overly-poetic ramblings of an alcoholic.
Did I go back and judge 17-year-old-me as a complete idiot? No. I realized I'd changed and matured and that On the Road probably works better as a book to be read when you're a teen.
The evidence that I’m a fan (of Middle Earth, of that galaxy far far away, of Narnia) is the glazed over look I get from non-fans when I speak about these wonderful places. I’m sorry that they don’t understand the joy I have. They think I’m all worked up about a “harmless rabbit.”
Reminds me of something Lewis wrote once, I think it was in "The Inner Ring". Social circles by nature exclude the outside world; but this is a byproduct, not their main feature. When the main purpuse of a circle becomes to exclude, it becomes quite a dangerous thing.
There are some (limited) sense in which distinctions between fans may be useful. A man who likes the Lord of the Rings movies for its mythical element will probably like the books; a man who likes it merely as a summer blockbuster may not. So while both are (properly) called "Tolkien fans", one likes it more for its "tolkienism" than the other.
Or we might make a historical comparison on how the term has evolved. Superheros, for example. A comic book fan in the 1970's was probably more "devoted" than the one that goes to the movies every three months to see the new Marvel movies. The very fact that we apply the same term (a term which originally meant "fanatic") for both is, in itself, interesting.
But all of that would be descriptive, not prescriptive analysis (and are probably better done when we put ourselves outisde of the group being discussed). However, any time someone says "you're not a REAL fan", all he is saying is "you're a BAD fan". Nothing to be learned, only a way to shame others. In that regard, you're completely right.
Was going to mention "The Inner Ring" as well; Tolkien's fellow Inkling wrote an incredibly insightful essay basically about this very topic.
You've brought up a really helpful point, G. K. I've loved Tolkien's works since childhood but seriously since 1988. For the 12 years before the movies came out, I never called myself a Tolkien fan despite the fact that I was devoted to reading and discussing his works. I think that the concept of fandom has been borrowed from sports and music and TV. Nothing wrong with the word but perhaps the idea of being a "fan(atic)" influences us towards extreme views without realizing it. I'm still vaguely uncomfortable with calling myself a Tolkien fan and I've only just discovered why. I prefer Tolkien enthusiast or Tolkien lover (I know that sounds dated). Here's a deep dive into the psychology of fandomania. https://twotwoone.nyc/the-social-and-technological-evolution-of-fandoms-through-new-media-and-mass-communication/
You can have ideas on which iteration of the loved product is best (if there is more than one version of it), but it's better you keep them to yourself unless you're an academic or a professional reviewer looking at its seriously, or talking in private IRL. Bad-mouthing and gossip-mongering in online forums does no one any favors.