Primarily because Tolkien is the bog standard in the genre.
Why? There was plenty of fantasy written before Tolkien.
It seems very unfair to criticise something thst isn't Tolkien for not being Tolkien.
If the intent were to be something else, that generally requires some sort of preamble, which this didn't have. And as far as I know, the intent of the books was to create a story in a more or less Tolkienesque world. Certainly elves, dwarves, humans, gnomes, trolls, druids etc... and demons all seem to fit the template.
There are no gnomes or druids in Tolkien.
But the original book was pretty much a Tolkien knock off, but with details deliberately changed:
Wizard => druid Goblin => gnome Distant past => far future
[elves and demons didn't appear in book 1]
Never the less, my complaint isn't so much that the elves were 'different than my expectation' so much that most of the actors and actresses looked like they just walked off of the B list casting for a a teen focused soap opera.
MTV. They probably had just come off a teen focused soap opera.
Why? There was plenty of fantasy written before Tolkien.
So I am not sure if you are trolling here or what, but I think we can merely agree to disagree.
Trolling?
Really?
Why is that so hard to believe?
Think of fairytales. Think of myths. The Illiad and the Odyssey. Morte d'Arthur. Beowulf. Nearly anything by Shakespeare. People have been dabbling in strange and fantastical storytelling since storytelling first came to be. All Tolkien did was mainstream it.
@Nonnahswriter , your mention of Shakespeare made me think of the famous witches' opening of "MacBeth".
First Witch Round about the cauldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter'd venom sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
All Double, double, toil and trouble; (10) Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg and howlet's wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
All Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Third Witch Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf, Witches' mummy, maw and gulf Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark, Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark, (controversial, offensive anti-Semitic line redacted), Gall of goat, and slips of yew Silver'd in the moon's eclipse, Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips, Finger of birth-strangled babe (30) Ditch-deliver'd by a drab, Make the gruel thick and slab: Add thereto a tiger's chaudron, For the ingredients of our cauldron.
All Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch Cool it with a baboon's blood, Then the charm is firm and good.
Best magical incantations, ever! And also likely the inspiration for Gary Gygax's "material" components necessary for spells in D&D, or one of the inspirations for the idea.
@nonnahswriter - I don't deny that there are other fantasy writers and worlds, both before and since. Far from it. But to ask why I have what is widely considered to be the standard fantasy realm AS my (and indeed most people's) default? It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
I may personally prefer Steven Brust as my fantasy world of choice, but I recognize that when people talk about elves and dwarves and wizards, probably 95% of the known world thinks of Tolkien's work. It's like if you start taking about Science Fiction, people invariably think Star Trek or Star Wars rather than Firefly or Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica or Doctor Who (which has been around since before both Star Trek or Star Wars and is still going strong) or any of the many MANY other Science Fiction media out there.
@the_spyder , I normally am totally sympatico and in agreement with most of what you say, but I have to diverge with you in opinion on this topic. There are SO many versions of "elves" in the English-speaking culture, both pre-dating and post-dating Tolkein's and D&D's take on them, that I don't think the general public has any common perception of what an "elf" is at all.
I think most people probably think of "Santa's elves" when they think "elf", not Tolkein. These are usually imagined to be small creatures (a "shorty" race) who are mischievous and faerie-like. They hide and do stuff that no one in the mundane world can see. I think that in the history of English, the term "elf" is often used interchangeably with "gremlin", that is "A wizard did it", "Gremlins did it", and "Elves did it", are interchangeable in broad English meaning, and Santa Claus himself is a "Jolly Old Elf" as of the publication of "Twas the Night Before Christmas".
They may also think of Dobby the house elf and his kind from Harry Potter, especially those of the younger generation who don't play a lot of fantasy games.
There is also interchangeability with the terms "gnome" and "elf". Many people think of "garden gnomes" when they think of "elf". It's the same difference, to those people.
There is the same cross-referencing with the term "dwarf" among the English-speaking general public. I think "Snow White" is more influential than Tolkein on the English-speaking public's perception of the word "dwarf". Admittedly, the Disney "Snow White" dwarves do sync up fairly well with Tolkein "dwarves".
The terms "elf", "gnome", "gremlin", "dwarf", "little green men", "goblin", "troll", "little people", "Lilliputians", "faeires", and many other such terms, have all synced up in commonly spoken present-day English to be almost interchangeable in meaning. The images associated with those terms are highly subjective and dependent on reading and film-watching context. The broad archetype still held is Jung's "Wise Little Person", when it is not "Mischief and Grief-Causing Little Person". Lucas told Moyer in an interview that he was specifically thinking of Joseph Campbell's interpretation of the Jungian archetype of "Wise Little Person" when he imagined and created Yoda.
Examples of the "Mischief and Grief-Causing Little Person" - Mr. Myxyzptlk, Rumpelstiltskin, the Gremlins movies, the "Trolls" movies, the "Chuckie" movies, Sacred "gnomes" and "goblins", "Puck" in "Midsummer Night's Dream" (a very old Shakespearean example), etc.
There is even more confusion in that the term "dwarf" also refers to a scientific genetic condition suffered by many people in the present-day real world that is rife with "political correctness", and "being considerate and kind to differently abled people" type problems, not to mention that the term is used to refer to a certain star type in astronomy.
The issue of terminology for all of the "little people" or "magical people" gets even more murky when you start to study foreign languages. The literal translations of "dwarf", "gnome", "elf", "halfling", "goblin", "gremlin", "troll", etc. all invoke totally different images of appearance and nature from language to language. Many other monster names have the same problems in translation.
So, insisting that the Tolkein images and definitions of any of these terms in his works are somehow held by "95 percent of the public" is, well, likely false, just like the statement "95 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot." It's also kind of politically incorrectly Eurocentric.
There's a VAST history and cultural heritage of high fantasy and the language, myths, and images associated with it. To fixate on Tolkein, and the D&D that's based on Tolkein, as some kind of norm, is to greatly limit one's understanding and perception of history and culture.
And it probably also ruins one's enjoyment of the works of Terry Brooks, which is the topic of this thread.
EDIT: Just thought of another version of "elves" - the "Keebler elves", who live in a tree and make cookies and crackers for Nabisco. And the "Lucky Charms" elf (oops, I guess that one's a "leprechaun", but what is a "leprechaun" but an Irish "elf"), who puts marshmallows into General Mills cereals. Just like Santa, these elves represent capitalist marketing commercialism at its finest, taking ancient and beloved Jungian archetypes and making them into advertising mascots.
@nonnahswriter - I don't deny that there are other fantasy writers and worlds, both before and since. Far from it. But to ask why I have what is widely considered to be the standard fantasy realm AS my (and indeed most people's) default? It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
I may personally prefer Steven Brust as my fantasy world of choice, but I recognize that when people talk about elves and dwarves and wizards, probably 95% of the known world thinks of Tolkien's work. It's like if you start taking about Science Fiction, people invariably think Star Trek or Star Wars rather than Firefly or Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica or Doctor Who (which has been around since before both Star Trek or Star Wars and is still going strong) or any of the many MANY other Science Fiction media out there.
I'm quite willing to accept that Tolkien is YOUR default fantasy, but your assumption that 95% of the known world thinks the same as you is completely false. You make the case yourself with your SF example. For me, growing up in 1970s Britain, Doctor Who is absolutely top of my list of "default SF", followed by Blake's 7 and Space 1999.
As for "default elves", outside of geek circles I'm quite sure a much greater proportion of the world population think of Santa's tiny toymakers than think of Tolkien.
@BelgarathMTH - fair enough point. I revise my statement to say "Tolkien Elves" are "My" (personal and subjective) default. My reason is because I read the books so many times, love the movies and see many similarities between them and D&D elves (and I played a lot of D&D in my youth). So when I've read books, unless the author specifically states otherwise, that is where I start. Forgive me if I miss-spoke earlier.
I will however again quote where I was originally going:
Never the less, my complaint isn't so much that the elves were 'different than my expectation' so much that most of the actors and actresses looked like they just walked off of the B list casting for a a teen focused soap opera.
I could be wrong here, but I don't "Think" that was what Terry Brooks was going for. Again, I have not read the books and so maybe that is indeed his version of things? I defer to those who have read the books and may know better.
I'd like to hear from more forumites about how good or bad this show is. The only way I have available to watch it is to buy it from Amazon Prime for $19.99. Is it worth paying that per season to follow the show?
About the price of a discount computer game, or a home-delivered large pizza. Hmm.
They're offering the first episode for free. Maybe I can try that and make my decision after.
"Magic always comes with a price" the druid just said.
Don't we know that phrase all too well from a different show @BelgarathMTH
That is actually a common theme in a wide variety of fantasy stories. Supernatural mentions it all the time. Dresden Files books mention it quite a lot as well. I've seen it elsewhere as well.
@BelgarathMTH - it is difficult to gauge without knowing your situation and your interest. I have enjoyed the episodes that I've watched (despite my complaints listed above) and look forward to more episodes. It isn't 'Game of Thrones' intensity nor is it as Epic as "Lord of the Rings", but it is better than something like Atlantis. I can't speak to how faithful it is to the books, but it is a decent story.
If money is tight, I'd suggest holding off till it shows up on Prime or Netflix, which it will eventually. If money isn't that big a deal, I'd say go for it. You will get more out of it than a large Pizza. But best to check out the free first episode and see for yourself.
@Shandyr, while I don't remember much of it, I read the Elfstones and the Elfsong of Shannara while I was a young college age D&D player, also coming to terms with being gay at the time. (Six books, I think, two trilogies.) I remember that I made a D&D druid with my tabletop group that I named "Allanon", and that I really liked the protagonist because the cover art depicted him as a very cute young man.
If the protagonist in this new TV version of Brooks' story is being played by a cute young dude, and his cuteness and athleticism is played up in "fan service" scenes added just for that purpose, I don't think I would complain about that.
@BelgarathMTH - I suppose it depends on who "The protagonist" is. If it is Allanon, he is played by this dude:
If you mean Wil, he is played by this dude:
I suspect you mean Wil. Either way, depending on your taste, I suppose either might fit the bill. For my taste, this is who I like:
I also like the actor who plays Allanon because he was a strong role in Spartacus: Blood and Sand and he had a recurring role on Arrow (not a great show but entertaining). He's a passable actor and I just think he's cool.
Yes, I watched the first episode last night and was very impressed. I'm probably going to buy the season now. I thought it had cinema quality filmography, locations, sets and acting. Did you know that exterior shots were filmed in New Zealand, just like "Lord of the Rings"?
It brought back a lot of memories from my D&D playing years. Besides "Allanon", I also played a half-elf cleric-mage that I named "Wil Ohmsford". (My first mage>cleric dual had been "Barnabas Collins". I wasn't very creative with character names, always lifting them from whatever fiction I was into at the time, and playing the same personality as the name.)
I think this show shows how well it can work out to make a TV series out of an epic fantasy book series. I enjoyed the "Sword of Truth" series based on Terry Goodkin's books, and I wish it hadn't been cancelled so soon. And of course, there's the juggernaut "Game of Thrones" series, which I think may have paved the way for "The Shannara Chronicles" to be made. Now if only someone would make a good TV series out of David Edding's "Belgariad", whence comes my screen name, I'd die a happy man.
I watched an interview with Terry Brooks, and he seemed thrilled and pleased with the updating and adaptation of his books. I hope this new series goes on for a long time.
Comments
It seems very unfair to criticise something thst isn't Tolkien for not being Tolkien. There are no gnomes or druids in Tolkien.
But the original book was pretty much a Tolkien knock off, but with details deliberately changed:
Wizard => druid
Goblin => gnome
Distant past => far future
[elves and demons didn't appear in book 1] MTV. They probably had just come off a teen focused soap opera.
Rys Davies is the poor man's Brian Blessed.
Really?
Why is that so hard to believe?
Think of fairytales. Think of myths. The Illiad and the Odyssey. Morte d'Arthur. Beowulf. Nearly anything by Shakespeare. People have been dabbling in strange and fantastical storytelling since storytelling first came to be. All Tolkien did was mainstream it.
Goodreads has a whole list of famous books written before Tolkien, and then some: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2365.Pre_Tolkien_Fantasy?page=1
First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
All
Double, double, toil and trouble; (10)
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
All
Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Third Witch
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
(controversial, offensive anti-Semitic line redacted),
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe (30)
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.
All
Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
Best magical incantations, ever! And also likely the inspiration for Gary Gygax's "material" components necessary for spells in D&D, or one of the inspirations for the idea.
I may personally prefer Steven Brust as my fantasy world of choice, but I recognize that when people talk about elves and dwarves and wizards, probably 95% of the known world thinks of Tolkien's work. It's like if you start taking about Science Fiction, people invariably think Star Trek or Star Wars rather than Firefly or Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica or Doctor Who (which has been around since before both Star Trek or Star Wars and is still going strong) or any of the many MANY other Science Fiction media out there.
I think most people probably think of "Santa's elves" when they think "elf", not Tolkein. These are usually imagined to be small creatures (a "shorty" race) who are mischievous and faerie-like. They hide and do stuff that no one in the mundane world can see. I think that in the history of English, the term "elf" is often used interchangeably with "gremlin", that is "A wizard did it", "Gremlins did it", and "Elves did it", are interchangeable in broad English meaning, and Santa Claus himself is a "Jolly Old Elf" as of the publication of "Twas the Night Before Christmas".
They may also think of Dobby the house elf and his kind from Harry Potter, especially those of the younger generation who don't play a lot of fantasy games.
There is also interchangeability with the terms "gnome" and "elf". Many people think of "garden gnomes" when they think of "elf". It's the same difference, to those people.
There is the same cross-referencing with the term "dwarf" among the English-speaking general public. I think "Snow White" is more influential than Tolkein on the English-speaking public's perception of the word "dwarf". Admittedly, the Disney "Snow White" dwarves do sync up fairly well with Tolkein "dwarves".
The terms "elf", "gnome", "gremlin", "dwarf", "little green men", "goblin", "troll", "little people", "Lilliputians", "faeires", and many other such terms, have all synced up in commonly spoken present-day English to be almost interchangeable in meaning. The images associated with those terms are highly subjective and dependent on reading and film-watching context. The broad archetype still held is Jung's "Wise Little Person", when it is not "Mischief and Grief-Causing Little Person". Lucas told Moyer in an interview that he was specifically thinking of Joseph Campbell's interpretation of the Jungian archetype of "Wise Little Person" when he imagined and created Yoda.
Examples of the "Mischief and Grief-Causing Little Person" - Mr. Myxyzptlk, Rumpelstiltskin, the Gremlins movies, the "Trolls" movies, the "Chuckie" movies, Sacred "gnomes" and "goblins", "Puck" in "Midsummer Night's Dream" (a very old Shakespearean example), etc.
There is even more confusion in that the term "dwarf" also refers to a scientific genetic condition suffered by many people in the present-day real world that is rife with "political correctness", and "being considerate and kind to differently abled people" type problems, not to mention that the term is used to refer to a certain star type in astronomy.
The issue of terminology for all of the "little people" or "magical people" gets even more murky when you start to study foreign languages. The literal translations of "dwarf", "gnome", "elf", "halfling", "goblin", "gremlin", "troll", etc. all invoke totally different images of appearance and nature from language to language. Many other monster names have the same problems in translation.
So, insisting that the Tolkein images and definitions of any of these terms in his works are somehow held by "95 percent of the public" is, well, likely false, just like the statement "95 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot." It's also kind of politically incorrectly Eurocentric.
There's a VAST history and cultural heritage of high fantasy and the language, myths, and images associated with it. To fixate on Tolkein, and the D&D that's based on Tolkein, as some kind of norm, is to greatly limit one's understanding and perception of history and culture.
And it probably also ruins one's enjoyment of the works of Terry Brooks, which is the topic of this thread.
EDIT: Just thought of another version of "elves" - the "Keebler elves", who live in a tree and make cookies and crackers for Nabisco. And the "Lucky Charms" elf (oops, I guess that one's a "leprechaun", but what is a "leprechaun" but an Irish "elf"), who puts marshmallows into General Mills cereals. Just like Santa, these elves represent capitalist marketing commercialism at its finest, taking ancient and beloved Jungian archetypes and making them into advertising mascots.
As for "default elves", outside of geek circles I'm quite sure a much greater proportion of the world population think of Santa's tiny toymakers than think of Tolkien.
I will however again quote where I was originally going: I could be wrong here, but I don't "Think" that was what Terry Brooks was going for. Again, I have not read the books and so maybe that is indeed his version of things? I defer to those who have read the books and may know better.
About the price of a discount computer game, or a home-delivered large pizza. Hmm.
They're offering the first episode for free. Maybe I can try that and make my decision after.
@BelgarathMTH - it is difficult to gauge without knowing your situation and your interest. I have enjoyed the episodes that I've watched (despite my complaints listed above) and look forward to more episodes. It isn't 'Game of Thrones' intensity nor is it as Epic as "Lord of the Rings", but it is better than something like Atlantis. I can't speak to how faithful it is to the books, but it is a decent story.
If money is tight, I'd suggest holding off till it shows up on Prime or Netflix, which it will eventually. If money isn't that big a deal, I'd say go for it. You will get more out of it than a large Pizza. But best to check out the free first episode and see for yourself.
If the protagonist in this new TV version of Brooks' story is being played by a cute young dude, and his cuteness and athleticism is played up in "fan service" scenes added just for that purpose, I don't think I would complain about that.
If you mean Wil, he is played by this dude:
I suspect you mean Wil. Either way, depending on your taste, I suppose either might fit the bill. For my taste, this is who I like:
I also like the actor who plays Allanon because he was a strong role in Spartacus: Blood and Sand and he had a recurring role on Arrow (not a great show but entertaining). He's a passable actor and I just think he's cool.
It brought back a lot of memories from my D&D playing years. Besides "Allanon", I also played a half-elf cleric-mage that I named "Wil Ohmsford". (My first mage>cleric dual had been "Barnabas Collins". I wasn't very creative with character names, always lifting them from whatever fiction I was into at the time, and playing the same personality as the name.)
I think this show shows how well it can work out to make a TV series out of an epic fantasy book series. I enjoyed the "Sword of Truth" series based on Terry Goodkin's books, and I wish it hadn't been cancelled so soon. And of course, there's the juggernaut "Game of Thrones" series, which I think may have paved the way for "The Shannara Chronicles" to be made. Now if only someone would make a good TV series out of David Edding's "Belgariad", whence comes my screen name, I'd die a happy man.
I watched an interview with Terry Brooks, and he seemed thrilled and pleased with the updating and adaptation of his books. I hope this new series goes on for a long time.