Tolkien from the loser's perspective

[mummifiedstalin]

I am SO reading this next:

Middle-earth according to Mordor:
A newly translated Russian novel retells Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" from the perspective of the bad guys.

In Yeskov's retelling, the wizard Gandalf is a war-monger intent on crushing the scientific and technological initiative of Mordor and its southern allies because science "destroys the harmony of the world and dries up the souls of men!" He's in cahoots with the elves, who aim to become "masters of the world," and turn Middle-earth into a "bad copy" of their magical homeland across the sea. Barad-dur, also known as the Dark Tower and Sauron's citadel, is, by contrast, described as "that amazing city of alchemists and poets, mechanics and astronomers, philosophers and physicians, the heart of the only civilization in Middle-earth to bet on rational knowledge and bravely pitch its barely adolescent technology against ancient magic."

I'd bet that almost everyone who loves Tolkien has wondered what a story like this would look like at some point. I'm glad someone finally did it.

[callipygias]

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention here. Even fans of the movies who've never read the books should be hot for this, I'd think.
I'm torn between "What a fantastic idea!" and remembering all the piggyback books coming out today, like Zombie Jane Austen and "sequels" to classics from long-dead authors, and then thinking "High-grade fan fic is still fan fic."
Still, great idea, and it was written in '99, which at least makes it a forerunner of the piggyback phenom.

[Captain Hygiene]

Heh heh, very interesting. It should be noted that the article links to a free PDF copy of the translation - I was kind of hoping it was a legit published book in English (like the Jane Austen knockoffs and such), but I'm interested enough to try forging my way through an electronic text.

[mummifiedstalin]

It is a "legitimate published book" in Russian and a few other languages. It's apparently the legal agreements between publishers that's keeping it from being officially translated/published in English.

There's a really interesting article by the author (translated, thankfully) that explains his motivations, which I actually respect quite a bit.

And, calli, this is definitely not something that fits in the Jane Austen and Zombies fad. This thing is actually a quite serious thought-experiment, as the article linked above suggests. The guy has some serious social disagreements with Tolkien, even though he loves the creation-of-worlds he represents, and he wrote this to really explore some of the potentially disagreeable social, economic, and political assumptions Tolkien makes, or at least can be said to make if you aren't feeling in a sympathetic mood towards him.

[callipygias]

Mar 5, 2011 18:20:09 GMT -5 mummifiedstalin said:

calli, this is definitely not something that fits in the Jane Austen and Zombies fad.

It doesn't sound like it would be at all comparable to the zombie-type thing in quality, I meant that there are a lot of new books coming out based on classics. The more I think about it though, why should that bother me? This idea is awesome, and think about the possibilities it opens up. Maybe someone will write a great story that starts from the perspective of a nose waking up in a loaf of bread.

[mylungswereaching]

It sounds like Wicked. Where the Wizard of Oz was the bad guy and the Wicked Witch is the good guy. They can be very good if told well.

[inlovewithcrow]

I first heard of this sort of thing 15 years ago, though I don't remember the author and title, I'm sure it was English original and not just fanfic. A tolkien scholar and I discussed the simplistic nature of the moral lessons in LOTR and he brought this up to me. All my failing memory brings back was a female author's name.

[mummifiedstalin]

I have to defend Tolkien. (Not that you're criticizing him. I'm just in the mood. ;D)

You're right that the "lessons" are very simple and easy good and bad.

But there two things to remember:

1) That was the pretty much the point. It wasn't supposed to be a modern novel with complicated and realistic moral ambiguity.

2) The story isn't what makes Tolkien a great writer. It's the detail of a secondary world.

He set out to create languages he found aesthetically pleasing. Then, a few years later, he created some myths, largely stolen from Teutonic and Nordic myths that he'd studied, just to amuse himself with stories about people who might speak those languages. Then he wrote a story for his kids that ended up being popular and published. Then his publishers wanted a sequel, so he cranked out LotR, intending it first to be another kid's book, but he decided to amuse himself even more by making it fit his created history.

The story itself is, as Tolkien even discussed at length, cobbled together from a lot of things he enjoyed. There's Wagner in there, there's Catholic saints' lives, there's plain old rural English nostalgia (the hobbits are just that), and there's imaginative retelling of the Nordic and Teutonic myth and hero tales.

Tolkien wasn't by nature a story-teller, unlike C.S. Lewis who knew his way around a narrative. But what Tolkien did that was unique was create a massively alternate world in a way that no (or almost no one) had done before. The story was just something to do in that world.

That said, I actually find certain stories in the Silmarillion to have the kind of "moral realism" that I think people who criticize LotR for its simplistic moral universe might enjoy. The (long) story of Beren and Luthien is fraught with the same pull between duty and love that the good bits of the Aeneid have. The story of Turin is also one that pits the "epic hero" against the duties of family and duty-to-country/kingdom/state in ways that would make many a 21st-century ironist smile. But since it feels like reading the Old Testament, no one does.

One reason I really like this Russian re-telling, and especially the essay he wrote, is that the guy totally gets that. He doesn't exactly "criticize" Tolkien so much as say, "Okay, if Tolkien had lived spiritually in the 20th century rather than in his own made-up medieval world of easy moral and religious truths, how might this story have looked against the same amazing backdrop?" I love that.

[Blurryeye]

Mar 18, 2011 11:23:14 GMT -5 mummifiedstalin said:

That said, I actually find certain stories in the Silmarillion to have the kind of "moral realism" that I think people who criticize LotR for its simplistic moral universe might enjoy. The (long) story of Beren and Luthien is fraught with the same pull between duty and love that the good bits of the Aeneid have. The story of Turin is also one that pits the "epic hero" against the duties of family and duty-to-country/kingdom/state in ways that would make many a 21st-century ironist smile. But since it feels like reading the Old Testament, no one does.

The Silmarillion is actually the first Tolkien book I read all the way through; I loved it. I had started the Fellowship of the Ring before but never finished it until much later, after reading The Silmarillion. I was transfixed by the epic scale and myriad tales contained in it. The sheer scope and breadth of the entire history of Middle Earth was magnificent. I also enjoyed posthumous The Children of Turin, it's more of a classical tragedy than The Hobbit and LOTR. There's a lot more to Tolkien and Middle Earth than those most popular works. I was also wryly amused that the entire story of the LoTR trilogy was summarized in The Silmarillion in one or two paragraphs.

Anyway, did this novel get published in English yet? It sounds interesting.

[mummifiedstalin]

How far into the archives are you reading?

But...last I heard, it was tied up with copyright disputes from his estate. The family doesn't want it published, basically, although I'd imagine that Christopher Tolkien would actually appreciate this sort of thing since it feeds into his own ongoing updating of his dad's work.

Still, the unofficial translation isn't bad. And, especially if you have an e-reader, it's pretty much like a regular book.

As much as I love LotR, it was Tolkien not doing what he did best, which was myth. Silmarillion is an incredibly complex book in all the ways that people complain LotR isn't. I still love LotR, but I recognize that Silmarillion is ultimately more serious in a thoughtful way. LotR is emotionally awesome, but it doesn't go as deep as Sil does.

[The Mad Plumber]

I noted some months ago that I began reading The Silmarillion in the "Now Reading" thread. Mummi warned me that most people fail to commit themselves to finishing it ... and ironically with all that had been going on in the last few months, I am nearly guilty of that.

Recently, I started a new job and I've taken the book with me to work to read on breaks. So, now I've found better time to finish the book with fewer distractions and am nearing the end.

The book gets interesting (and darker) towards the end. I'm reminded when I watched the Jackson film Return of the King where Orcs catapulted several severed heads at the heroes' fortress. I wondered whether that bit was from the book or was Jackson's own flourish. Well, from what I've read so far in The Silmarillion, I wouldn't put it past Tolkien to put something so gruesome in the book. After all, there's a poor fellow in The Silmarillion who gets his hands and feet chopped off by Orcs before getting decapitated. And people complain about Mortal Kombat.

The best and most bitterly tragic chapter I've read is "Of Túrin Turambar". It kind of reminded me of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet ... except with incest.

My major problem, though, is that I'm never entirely sure if the character that I'm reading about is supposed to be a Man or Elf. I'm not sure that can be choked up to the writing or to my poor reading skills.

[mummifiedstalin]

The Turin story is definitely my favorite. And if your only problem is remembering if they're men or elves, then you're doing better than I did first time around. I got confused with the first three F-named elf brothers, and never got over it. I was making my own family trees after awhile because it forced me to remember rather than just flipping to one of the "Tolkien Encyclopedias" I already had.

But awesome that you're enjoying it!