Anghraine

It's always kind of morbidly fascinating how much online Tolkien fandom is so powerfully shaped by the Jackson LOTR films, widespread Silm fanon based on brief and usually ambiguous scraps (if based on anything other than "stuff fandom BNFs came up with"), and bits and pieces from random documents Tolkien actually wrote (including things he explicitly discarded). And it's like—there's nothing wrong with liking the films, for all my gripes with them. I disagree w/ a lot of particular takes on them and resent their stranglehold on the fandom and the incessant glorification of that stranglehold, but they're powerful movies and I myself likely would have taken much longer to get into the book if not for the atmosphere created by the films.

But the posts about how wonderful it is that Tolkien fandom has moved past those silly days of yore when fanon spliced with the films spliced with decontextualized scraps wasn't the main mode of Tolkien fandom engagement, and how the Peter Jackson filter on everything Tolkien is right and good and maybe even a matter of social justice (?????) and so on are definitely frustrating. Without even getting into specific discourses, Tolkien fandom can be profoundly alienating if you're not into 1) the Jackson films or 2) popular fanon. And yeah, ultimately that's just a fandom misalignment between my personal interests and that of much of the larger fandom, and obviously they can and will do fandom in whatever way makes them happy. That's fine. But the active celebration of fandom pressure to conform to the interpretations of people who had no more impact on Tolkien's work than me is pretty deeply grating, ngl.

And the idea that incorporating popular bits and pieces of Tolkien material to augment the fanon+PJ!LOTR version of Middle-earth just proves that Tolkien fandom has left their movieverse days behind and is really about love for the books these days is like ... what. How does that even make sense? Fandom does not have to be about love for a specific source material and there is plenty to criticize and correct in Tolkien, yes. But there's a way in which I can respect people who say "I'm here more because I love the LOTR movies and the material created by the Tolkien fandom community than for most of what Tolkien actually wrote" (something I have seen people say!) far more than these saccharine celebratory posts about how Tolkien fandom has come so far by driving out book fans and, idk, desperately searching for a woman to blame for everything that goes wrong in the First Age.

(I recently encountered the theory that Celegorm's actions towards Lúthien are not driven by anything stated but by a desire to avenge Aredhel's rape/imprisonment by Eöl. Silm fandom quickly seemed like the Mirror Universe version of the Silmarillion when I got into it years ago, but at that point, I was just like "okay, Celegorm trying to rape Lúthien is actually Aredhel's fault? Sounds like a perfectly typical Silm fandom take.")

Anyway. There are definitely corners of Tolkien fandom that aren't like this and mutual disaffection is how I met most of my friends in the fandom, etc. But BNFs patting themselves on the back over how fantastic the current atmosphere is for everyone who matters :)))) does absolutely set my teeth on edge.

moggett responded to this post:

Doesn’t Elizabeth canonically have dark eyes, though? I think that suggests brown hair, though obviously sometimes light-haired people can have dark eyes…

I replied:

She does, but as you say, plenty of people with red or blonde hair have dark eyes. You could maybe say it’s more likely that someone with a tan and dark eyes has brown or black hair—no more than that IMO.

(I think there’s a difference between “X suggests it’s more likely” and “X suggests it’s the case.”)

Tagged: #i actually do imagine elizabeth with brown hair #and darcy with black or near-black hair #i'm just strongly against fanon imperatives

In response to this, heckofabecca said:

i love them all

I replied:

thank you :)))

nellification said:

With great respect: wasn’t Fitzwilliam Darcy’s father named George? I don’t know that this is stated explicitly in canon, but he’s George Wickham’s godfather, and it was customary (I believe) to name a child after an important godparent. Also, there’s Georgiana: her aristocratic name is a combination of “George” and “Anne”!

I replied:

The previous Mr Darcy’s name is at no point stated in canon. His name could be George and both Wickham and Georgiana named for him, but it is equally possible that they’re named for different people. Godchildren were sometimes named for important godparents, but by no means always, and George was an immensely common name.

“Georgiana” is an independently existing name that was used repeatedly among the aristocracy of the time without any reference to George+Anne. For instance, the most famous Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire (who incidentally would have spent part of the year extremely close to Pemberley) was simply named for her mother, Margaret Georgiana. IIRC it is etymologically just a fancy elaboration of Georgia or Georgina (this isn’t uncommon for names ending in -ana or -iana).

TBH at least half the reason my senior Mr Darcy is not named George is because the fandom is so insistent that it must be that, even though it’s not canon. I’m a pretty contrary creature at the best of times and I’ve been corrected with fanon so many times that I get a kick out of ignoring it.

Tagged: #i don't mean to sound hostile but i'm just ... really not fond of austen fanon