3 ms·
However, this characterization appears to be based on the Uzi Rule (the assumption that if J.R.R. Tolkien did not specifically deny the Orcs all carried Uzi sub
by BMc2020 4y ago
However, this characterization appears to be based on the Uzi Rule (the assumption that if J.R.R. Tolkien did not specifically deny the Orcs all carried Uzi sub-machine guns, then they must have carried such weapons; they simply didn’t use them in any scenes of the stories). The Uzi Rule illustrates the absurdity of fan attempts to redefine Tolkien’s Middle-earth on the basis of Absence of Denial, which is a classic logical fallacy.
- audunw 4y agoI've seen this argument used against ANY change/addition to Tolkien's story, which is just completely unreasonable. So the question is, when are we talking about giving Orcs Uzis, and when is it a reasonable change/addition? I don't feel like this article addresses the question. He mentions the Uzi rule in relation to "Galadriel was not a warrior in Tolkien’s stories. "But later he writes "So the Amazon show’s portrayal of Galadriel is not inconsistent with some of his thoughts." So is it unreasonable or not? Can we not talk about significant changes/additions to characters or plot points that might have been consistent with Tolkiens thoughts, without immediately jumping to the idea that it's the same as adding Uzis or fighter jets to the story? The "Uzi Rule" seems almost completely useless in this discussion. The use of "Uzi Rule" itself seems like a logical fallacy to me. It's a bit of a false dilemma and a slippery slope fallacy. A change is either OK because it's small enough, or it's just like adding Uzis, and if you made a change as big as X you might as well have added Uzis or fighter jets.