Tuesday 22 February 2011

The Last Ringbearer

I never thought I'd get to use this image again so soon!

This story's been making the rounds, as Ostatni Władca Pierścienia, Kirill Eskov's infamous 1999 alternate-universe Middle-earth novel, has been translated into English, and offered as a free download.

Now, those of you who've read my blog know I love alternate history, and equally love "evil Mirror Universes."  I'd be happy if the next Star Trek series was set in the Mirror Universe (the original one, not the watered-down Deep Space Nine version). So the idea of Evil Gandalf and Good Sauron is one that appeals to me on something of a morbid level - as long as it's treated as a mirror universe, and not necessarily as "historical" revisionism. That said, I could go with a bit of that, too, if it was well-written and consistent. However, there are certain things which bother me about alternate history, and one is using it as an unfair or facile criticism of the original work. Thoughtful, insightful criticism I could deal with - even enjoy - but unfair criticism, I oppose.

So where does The Last Ringbearer fit in?
Take The Iron Dream, for example. Norman Spinrad is on record as stating The Lord of the Swastika (Mirror Universe Adolf Hitler's best-selling novel) was a lampooning of Heroic Fantasy, which he felt was inherently fascistic. Heroic Fantasy, of course, including The Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien's vehement anti-fascist leanings appear to have passed him by. I like some of Spinrad's other work ("The Doomsday Machine" is one of my favourite Trek episodes) but The Iron Dream was like an excitable puppy chewing on an old boot that believes it's a mighty wolf savaging its prey: it thinks very highly of its satirical bite and all the other puppies nod their approval sagely, but the adults just sit and shake their heads. "Oh, those pups and their naiveté."

You can't get a better cover for The Iron Dream than Adolf Hitler riding a futuristic motorcycle.

Now, full disclosure: I haven't read The Last Ringbearer. This post isn't going to be a direct review of it. However, it's going to function a bit like a "review review," in that I'm going to review what I know of the story via Laura Miller's review. I may well read the story in the future, but for now, I'm only going to comment on anything I'm in a position to comment, which is broad strokes and supposition based on second-hand information.  Hey, it works for The Guardian, so it should work for me.

Here's a synopsis from Salon:

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.”

Oy... This is already getting my heckles up.

First of all is the "science vs magic" dynamic. Again, this is the sort of thing I love, but it's so easy for it to degenerate into a painfully blunt "science vs religion" "allegory," usually painting one side as completely in the right and the other as unreasonable dogmatic tyrants. Either Science is Good and Religion Magic is the domain of old men dominating a cowed and superstitious populous in an archaic system that belonged in the dark ages, or Magic is Good and Science is destroying spirituality and nature in the unstoppable juggernaut of industrialisation. Such bland tales have died a thousand deaths over the years. I have little patience for them. And, unfortunately, from Miller's synopsis, this seems to be exactly what The Last Ringbearer's about.

The way this is being described is equally worrisome to me, as it seems like it could be perceived as a criticism of Tolkien's alleged "anti-technology" standpoint. Such an argument I've seen is the one where Tolkien's a hopeless romantic, preferring the Middle Ages to modern times, viewing progress as inherently bad and nostalgia for the past as inherently good.  However, this is a grave and preposterous simplification of Tolkien's true fear, that of technology actively causing the destruction of the environment.

And you know what?  He was sort of right.  The fume-belching towers of Isengard and Mordor are easily evocative of the overzealous industries which have resulted in massive damage to the environment. Ever since the pea-soupers of Victorian London, smog has affected cities to this day: Mexico City, Los Angeles, Beijing, Manila, and countless other cities have suffered outbreaks which have left hundreds dead from smoke inhalation, to say nothing of the environmental damage. To reduce Tolkien's fear of industry damaging the environment and the very soul of men to scurrilous anti-technological paranoia is to deny his portentous and uncanny vision of the future. Or the present, come to think of it.

So yeah, not off to a good start. Then there are just some weird head-scratchers: if the Elves were planning on becoming "masters of the world," aren't they a bit past that stage? What with them dying out and going back across the sea to their homeland? Then you have to wonder why the Hobbits, who have arguably the most advanced technology in the entire series, aren't the biggest villains or Mordor-sympathizers in the entire book: they had trains, fercryinoutloud!*  Or maybe they are, who knows.

For the most part, though, "The Last Ringbearer" is a well-written, energetic adventure yarn that offers an intriguing gloss on what some critics have described as the overly simplistic morality of Tolkien's masterpiece.

OK, this might be dangerously close to Godwin's Law, but I feel it has to be brought up. There are some occasions in life where there are definite bad guys. I'm all for hearing one side out, but there are just some occasions where moral relativism becomes inadequate, and events, actions or individuals can only be described as evil. Sure, there are plenty of proxy wars, cold wars, squabbles over land, jurisdiction, trade tariffs or what have you, but just because you can't describe all wars as "good vs evil" doesn't mean you can describe all wars as being completely morally ambiguous.

 After all, "from a certain point of view" the Galactic Empire are alright guys...

Yes, history is written by the victors, but that doesn't mean history is inherently untrustworthy, and such moral relativism strikes me as somewhat offensive to the memory of the real people who've died in those wars. Taking the idea that Mordor and Sauron were the victims of a massive cover-up is like saying the Mongols didn't actually sack and destroy countless cities and murdered millions in their conquests. Challenging historical preconceptions is one thing, even healthy and something I advocate, but not to this extent.

No, Mordor doesn't exist, so it's all right to say that maybe they weren't such bad guys after all. Nobody's getting hurt, nobody's having their reputations sullied, nobody's descendent are being attacked. However, if you think in the context of a fictional world, then The Last Ringbearer strikes me as being the fictional equivalent of Armenian Holocaust deniers. Riddle me this: if it transpires Mordor was indeed a bastion of science and progress, then how in Melkor's name has the "myth" of evil Mordor persisted? Surely there must be evidence of this strewn all over the place with such a large-scale campaign, not to mention the testimony of millions of survivors and veterans.

Because Gandalf refers to Mordor as the "Evil Empire" and is accused of crafting a "Final Solution to the Mordorian problem" by rival wizard Saruman

Wow, I had issues with raising the spectre of Godwin's Law, but it seems these guys had no problems doing exactly that in the most profound way I could imagine. Next thing you know, Gandalf will be quoting Mein Kampf and mangling the philosophy of Nietzche. Because, of course, if you're worried you can't make a character evil enough, just give them blunt and obvious Nazi connotations. Subtlety? Who he?

But the juxtaposition of the willfully feudal and backward "West," happy with "picking lice in its log 'castles'" while Mordor cultivates learning and embraces change, also recalls the clash between Europe in the early Middle Ages and the more sophisticated and learned Muslim empires to the east and south.

No.  No, no, no, no, no. Don't do this. Don't do this, Ms Miller.

Yes, the Muslims of the alleged Dark Ages were advanced, and made many wonderful contributions to the world. But to say they were a single ray of light in a wilfully backward world of brutish Europeans is to deny the many scientific achievements made by Europeans at the time. And for what? To say the Muslims weren't so bad? What does demonising the Europeans have to do with acknowledging the great things which have issued from the Muslim world? Surely one can do both without demonising the other?  Next you'll be saying that the Muslims were the innocent, blameless victims of Christian aggression during the Crusades!

Sauron passes a "universal literacy law," while the shield maiden Eowyn has been raised illiterate, "like most of Rohan's elite" -- good guys Tolkien based on his beloved Anglo-Saxons.

What's this about the Anglo-Saxons being illiterate? I dearly hope Ms Miller is not saying that the Anglo-Saxons were, indeed, incapable of reading, and that this was purely an invention of The Last Ringbearer in regards to the Rohirrim. If that's the case, then...  literacy makes you inherently good, and illiteracy makes you bad? I thought this novel was about changing preconceptions of what's good and bad, not just adhering to stereotypes? Or is this yet another fish-in-a-barrel shot, where the Evil Rohirrim suppress freedom of knowledge and expression in contrast to the enlightened Good Mordorians?

Some of the supporting characters from "The Lord of the Rings" -- such as Faramir and Eowyn -- get more attention and and even a bit more respect in "The Last Ringbearer."

I'd love to see how this could possibly work, considering these were meant to be the bad guys in The Last Ringbearer. Is Eowyn striking out against The Man and becoming a shieldmaiden, rebelling against her patriarchal, misogynist society and myopic, stubborn father?  Is Faramir a gutless drone forced into war by his heartless and cynical father?  I notice that Aragorn is apparently a puppet of Arwen: are we to suppose that Arwen is the capable one, and that Aragorn is completely at her mercy and dominated by her? (Have I just stepped into Jackson's Lord of the Rings?)

(Still others, like the hobbits, don't even exist.)

... So the Hobbits, the single greatest counter-argument to the preposterous idea that the Good Guys of Middle-earth were anti-progress and the Bad Guys pro-progress, is just swept under the rug. Not even an attempt to justify or address the seeming contradiction in the "argument." How very convenient.

Some Tolkien fans have dismissed "The Last Ringbearer" as nothing more than fan fiction, although it certainly doesn't conform to the stereotype of fan fiction as fantasies of unlikely romantic pairings among "canonical" characters as imagined by teenage girls. What the novel most closely resembles is "Wind Done Gone" by Alice Randall, a retelling of Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind" from the perspective of a slave born on Scarlett O'Hara's plantation. "Wind Done Gone" was published in 2001, prompting a copyright infringement suit from Mitchell's estate. Randall, who is African-American, and her publisher mounted a defense resting in part on the argument that "Wind Done Gone" is a "parody," intended to highlight the retrograde racial attitudes and historical distortions in Mitchell's misty-eyed depiction of the Old South.

It should be said on behalf of "The Last Ringbearer" that it is superior to "Wind Done Gone" as both literature and entertainment. The two books do, however, have similar agendas. In Yeskov's scenario, "The Lord of the Rings" is a highly romanticized and mythologized version of the fall of Mordor, perhaps even outright propaganda; "The Last Ringbearer" is supposed to be the more complicated and less sentimental true story.

I see. Having not read Wind Gone Done I cannot comment: however, the idea that The Lord of the Rings is the equivalent of propaganda just exacerbates my concerns about the sheer practicality. The Lord of the Rings, as a document, exists.  The Last Ringbearer is the "true story."  So how on earth can anyone reconcile the idea of The Lord of the Rings even working as propaganda? If this is indeed the case, then The Lord of the Rings is a piece of flagrant pseudohistory more grotesque and preposterous than the Oceanian governments assertions, and historical fantasy that exceeds even the excesses of 300.

Let's try and think about it from a historical standpoint using a past war. Say, the conquests of Timur. Timur, of course, was the legendary warlord and master of a grand dynasty which wrought havoc and mayhem on the western world. Timur conquered much of Central and Western Asia in a series of bloody campaigns, the most infamous being his invasion of Persia. One such incident saw the city of Isfahan surrender: Timur responded by putting everyone in the entire city to death. He then had their heads piled into pyramids. There were fifteen hundred heads in each. He had twenty-eight of these pyramids erected.

The Last Ringbearer would, then, cast Timur not as a red-handed conqueror, but a man of vision, who introduced bold new social orders and fostered great centres of cultural learning, who was fighting against the evil oppressors of India and Persia. All the evidence of his atrocities - the records, the chronicles, the eyewitness accounts, the art, the graves - have apparently been wiped from existence, and nobody was aware of them.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Timur was both. Samarcand was a wondrous citadel of education, culture and art, and Timur a generous patron. But that's the conundrum of evil: even the most despicable men in history have done things that can be admired, and one shouldn't confuse acknowledgement of those great deeds with acceptance or denial of their worse deeds. One can respect a conqueror raising a country ravaged by war, poverty and debt into an industrial juggernaut without excusing, forgiving or denying their contributions to some of the most harrowing horrors in the history of the world.

Can this be done with Sauron? I think one can respect the talent he shows in coercing the people of Middle-earth as subtly as he has, as well as the industriousness of his creations.

This, then, appears to be my problem with The Last Ringbearer: rather than professing to show that "every side has a story," it just switches the heroes and villains around. It's no less a black-and-white fantasy than what it perceives The Lord of the Rings to be in the first place. It had the opportunity to expand upon what Tolkien already did, but squandered it in a simple colour-negative treatment.

The protagonist of "The Last Ringbearer" is a field medic from Umbar (a southern land), who is ably assisted by an Orocuen -- that is, orc -- scout, who is not a demonic creature like the orcs in "The Lord of the Rings," but an ordinary man.

This is the point where I truly gave up on The Last Ringbearer, because it falls victim to the very extremist mentality it seems to be accusing The Lord of the Rings of falling into. These orcs aren't really demonic creatures, they're just human beings! Oh, let us boo and hiss the spineless Elessar dynasty and the scoundrel Gandalf for casting their ancient foes as subhuman monsters! Let's forget the obvious question, that if this really was a work of propaganda fiction, why didn't the authors of the Red Book of Westmarch just characterise the Haradrim, Easterlings and Dunlendings as inhuman monsters: why change the orcs from monsters to humans in the first place? There was a perfect opportunity to present the idea of non-human orcs who might look scary and savage being more than fairytale monsters, and they decided against it. Hell, if I was doing a Mirror Universe LotR, that's exactly what I'd do.

But in Yeskov's eagerness to show LotR as propaganda, he eschews this potentially powerful idea, and instead makes the orcs the result of anti-Mordorian demonization. Which is, in my opinion, a letdown, stretches credulity, and ends up edging near Spinrad territory.

The inhuman nature of the orcs and Tolkien's depiction of Mordor's human allies as swarthy-skinned outsiders has prompted complaints that his book obscures the moral conundrums of warfare and dabbles in racial demonization.

As I stated above, sometimes there are bad guys in warfare. And, of course, I don't need to bring up the fact that Tolkien had zero stock in what he called the "wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine," so any ideas that the orcs are meant to represent, say, Asians or Black People is the fault of the reader, not the author. And, of course, Miller forgets to mention the swarthy-skinned outsiders who allied with the good guys - the Pelargir, the people of Dol Amroth, and most pertinently the Druidain. I wonder what Yeskov makes of these peoples.

Ugly, misshapen, swarthy, bestial - and good guys who are instrumental in the War of the Ring.

"The Lord of the Rings" wouldn't be as popular as it is if the pastoral idyll of the Shire and the sureties of a virtuous, mystically ordained monarchy as embodied in Aragorn didn't speak to widespread longing for a simpler way of life. There's nothing wrong with enjoying such narratives -- we'd be obliged to jettison the entire Arthurian mythos and huge chunks of American popular culture if there were -- but it never hurts to remind ourselves that it's not just their magical motifs that makes them fantasies.

Le sigh. The Shire as a pastoral idyll? Well, even before it was ruthlessly destroyed in the Scouring of the Shire, it wasn't perfect. Most of the Hobbits were insular and parochial, blissfully unaware of how well-protected they were by the unseen Rangers defending their borders from roving bands of goblins. Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin were largely the exceptions to the rule. Yet when the chips were down, the Hobbits proved their quality: even in those times where they did not have the Rangers to defend them, they proved their worth in hardship. Witness the Fell Winter, and of course the Battles of Greenfields and Bywater. The Shire even sent a contingent of Hobbits to the battle which destroyed the power of Angmar.

As for the "virtuous, mystically ordained monarchy" - please. Aragorn showed his qualities by virtue of hard graft, not divine entitlement. He wandered far, learned much, experienced strife, lived. More than you could say for the pampered nobles of many historical kings. Aragorn's nobility, courage and abilities are born not merely of his ancestry, but in his experiences. And then again, if Tolkien truly lionized the monarchy, then what does one make of such disastrous rulers as Ar-Pharazon and Isildur, who very nearly destroy their kingdoms through their pride and folly?

Perhaps this insistence that The Lord of the Rings adheres to such a fairytale and blithely ignores the questions of good and evil is part of the problem. It's certainly shown as such in the film adaptations: where is the subtlety of Denethor, who was a good man truly caught in the throes of madness and indecision by knowing more of the big picture than he was capable of comprehending, recast as a Snidely Whiplash mixed with Walter Peck as the maniacal villain who exists purely to put the heroes in unnecessary danger and stop them from doing their job? (I know I go on and on about Denethor, but really, that's probably the thing I dislike most about the adaptations.)

I may read The Last Ringbearer, but given what I've read so far, it doesn't seem to be the paradigm-shifting piece it claims to be. All it does is cast the heroes and villains in reverse, doing the exact thing it accuses the original story of doing. Perhaps it isn't as simple as that: perhaps the story is more "shades of grey" than the reviews indicate, and that there are heroes and villains on both sides.  Considering Tolkien himself knew this, perhaps Yeskov's novel is indeed the ultimate subversion: where Tolkien had good men fall from grace and evil men redeem themselves, perhaps a story where there are no Denethors, Gollums, Boromirs, Sarumans or other such moral grey areas would serve as an example of why Tolkien just isn't as black-and-white as people seem insistent on reiterating.


Or, perhaps there's a more brilliant motive: perhaps the shade of Sauron has whispered into the ear of Yeskov, presenting an alternate account of the War of the Ring. Beguiling Yeskov's scientifically-minded personality with lies of the Free People's anti-technological prejudice, misrepresenting the positions of Gandalf and the Elves as religious doctrine, and carefully omitting or dismissing those elements which might undermine his side of the story. Using the insidious persuasiveness which allowed him to destroy the island of Numenor without so much as a single orc, Sauron has convinced Yeskov that one of the few remaining documents of the War of the Ring was nothing more than a propaganda piece forged by the shady agents of Gandalf and Arwen.

From that point of view... that might actually be a damn good story.

EDIT: And because "how can you talk about a book you haven't read" criticism is a fair cop, yes, I have read The Last Ringbearer since writing this post. And... I can't think of anything to say other than what I've already said, and anything else was already covered by One Last Sketch. Michal's review is in fact far more valuable than mine, since he is in a position to comment on Eastern Europe's post-Tolkien traditions, and so can contextualise the writing of The Last Ringbearer in a way I simply couldn't. I guess the one thing which really stings about the book is nicely summed up by Michal thusly:

This is not moral nuance.  Without characters such as Gollum, or events such as the temptation of Galadriel and Frodo’s utter failure at Mount Doom, the morality of The Last Ringbearer is actually far more simplistic than the morality of its source material.

And when the entire point of a satire is supposedly to imbue the subject with moral nuance, that's a bit of a failure.

*Yes, I'm well aware that most reasonable people view the infamous line from "A Long Expected Party" (...The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion...) as a moment of Literary Agent Hypothesis, where one assumes that the translator from the original Red Book of Westmarch added it in to replace a Middle-earth simile that might be lost on readers, but come on, can't you imagine a delightful little Hobbit-train puffing about the Shire? Like one of those tiny ones that ferries children around gardens?  While "The Little Train of the Caipira" plays?

40 comments:

  1. "Is there a sight more beautiful than a desert sunset, when the sun, as if ashamed of its
    whitish daytime fierceness, lavishes a bounty of unimaginably tender and pure colors on its
    guests? [...] It was at such a midnight hour that two men moved like gray shadows along the gravelly inner edge of a sickle-shaped gap between two low dunes, and the distance between them was exactly that prescribed by the Field Manual for such occasions."

    And that's when I stopped reading. The beginning of the second paragraph. I mean, I was even able to finish the Prologue to _Eragon_, for Chrissakes, but I can't imagine reading *this* for, what is it again (looks) *269 pages*? It feels like Tolkien got dipped in Socialist Realism as a style, and judging from the above descriptions, a good deal of Marxist economics.

    Last sentence: "In other words, guys, live and let live. In our case it translates to this: you don’t have to listen to me spin tall tales if you don’t like them."

    Good point, Mr. Yeskov. I won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. British scientists are right - Americans can only read 300 characters. Then they lose interest.

      Spoken of feared socialism. Book 1984 talks about modern Capitalism. Cameras everywhere, patriotic act "humanitarian bombing of civilians" by NATO, war is peace, etc. Sadly, Americans cant read and think..

      Delete
    2. Re: "Americans can only read 300 characters"

      Brilliant point, except that LOTR is something like 1200 pages or so, and that seems to have found an audience....

      Delete
  2. First of all, let me say that it's a bit funny to bash a text based solely on the reviews without actually reading it, especially as it's available for free on the Internet.

    "But to say they were a single ray of light in a wilfully backward world of brutish Europeans is to deny the many scientific achievements made by Europeans at the time."

    Like what? Name some.

    "Next you'll be saying that the Muslims were the innocent, blameless victims of Christian aggression during the Crusades!"

    Okay, I'll bite. How, exactly, were the Muslims to blame for the Crusades, or were the Crusades not Christian aggression?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And that's when I stopped reading.

    I've struggled on ahead, and I'm starting to envy you. Still, one might put this down as a translation issue, perhaps.

    First of all, let me say that it's a bit funny to bash a text based solely on the reviews without actually reading it, especially as it's available for free on the Internet.

    It is indeed funny. However, this is purely due to the fact that I haven't taken the time to read it, but felt strongly moved by what I do know to the point where I felt I had to comment. I'm not exactly a fast reader. Chapter 1 has been annoying me quite a bit, though.

    Like what? Name some.

    The Carolingian and 12th Century Renaissances spring to mind. Many universities started up in the Middle Ages. Lots of engineering innovations like treadwheels, wheelbarrows, the heavy plough, the "classic" windmill, blast furnaces, horseshoes, all manner of cranes and construction devices. Plus the very important military innovations like spurs and arched saddles.

    Okay, I'll bite. How, exactly, were the Muslims to blame for the Crusades, or were the Crusades not Christian aggression?

    The Seljuks had conquered Anatolia from the Byzantines, utterly trouncing them at the Battle of Manzikert. Alexios pleaded with the Pope to send military aid, which he did. Not to mention the Islamic invasions of Spain, Sicily, and other traditionally Christian territories.

    Again, not seeking to demonize anyone, and one could argue about the invasions of the Holy Land, but it wasn't as if the Muslims were entirely blameless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Carolingian and 12th Century Renaissances spring to mind. Many universities started up in the Middle Ages.

    What scientific achievements did they produce?

    Lots of engineering innovations like treadwheels,

    Already existed in ancient Greece and definitely in Rome.

    wheelbarrows,

    Greek.

    the heavy plough,

    Already existed in Rome.

    the "classic" windmill,

    Hardly a scientific achievement, as it's simply an adaptation of the vertical windmill that already existed.

    blast furnaces,

    Already existed in China at the time, although they were probably invented independently in Europe. Again, I can't accept this as a scientific achievement; it's an engineering improvement, given that the early blast furnaces weren't very different from earlier bloomeries.

    horseshoes,

    This one's possibly a European innovation, although again, I can't see it as a scientific achievement.

    all manner of cranes and construction devices.

    I'm not aware of any medieval cranes or construction devices that would be so radically different from Roman technology to constitute a scientific achievement.

    Plus the very important military innovations like spurs

    The Celts used spurs as early as 500 BC.

    and arched saddles.

    Again, a refinement of the already-extant saddle; not a scientific achievement.

    The Seljuks had conquered Anatolia from the Byzantines, utterly trouncing them at the Battle of Manzikert. Alexios pleaded with the Pope to send military aid, which he did.

    That's a rather incomplete view of the First Crusade. The Pope sent a Crusade, which did anything but militarily aid the Byzantines; when the Crusaders took over formerly Byzantine territory, they didn't return it to Byzantium but kept it for themselves. In other words, the Crusaders weren't recovering lost Byzantine territory, they were occupying Muslim territory to create their own kingdoms and principalities.

    Not to mention the Islamic invasions of Spain, Sicily, and other traditionally Christian territories.

    "Traditionally Christian"? That's a very short-term use of "traditional". And how, exactly, does a Muslim invasion of Spain justify a French and Norman invasion of Palestine?

    Again, not seeking to demonize anyone, and one could argue about the invasions of the Holy Land, but it wasn't as if the Muslims were entirely blameless.

    I still don't see what they should be blamed for. The Crusades were a religious was of aggression, in which Christian knights attacked non-Christians for the crime of being non-Christian. It's really hard to get much more aggressive than that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "There are some occasions in life where there are definite bad guys. I'm all for hearing one side out, but there are just some occasions where moral relativism becomes inadequate, and events, actions or individuals can only be described as evil."

    I'll leave the historical arguments to those with a better grounding in it. But I wholly agree with the statement above. And even if it doesn't apply to life, it certainly applies to *fiction*. The point of Mordor is to be unrepentantly, awfully, unashamedly evil. I'm not a big one for ascribing authorial intent, but in this case, I think Tolkien is being clear what the Evil Empire stands for: EVIL.

    Critically, we can NOW go back and parse why Tolkien chose these particular descriptors to stand for EVIL, but there's a difference between looking at the furniture of his intent and the intent itself. Mordor is the bad guys. *Maybe* he didn't describe them in a way that will timelessly correlate to each generation's definition of evil, but, good lord people, THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS.

    Love the Guardian reference as to reviewing/reviews. I don't particularly see a problem with not having read the original text - this is an argument about the critic's arguments re: Tolkien, not the revisionist piece.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You could've read the text in the time it took to write this lengthy "review of the review".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not seeking to demonize anyone either...

    According to Bernard Lewis in The Crisis of Islam (2003), the Crusades can be viewed as a response to the original Muslim wars of conquest of non-Muslim territory (Christian, Zoroastrian, etc.)

    In other words, a Western response to the original jihad, a term most often defined as "the armed struggle for defense and advancement of Islam". A brief and delayed response compared to centuries of Muslim expansion, and a complete failure, but a response nonetheless.

    Lewis also states:

    "...in Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels."

    Jihad is technically ongoing in the House of War, until "all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule". Conversion is not required; non-Muslims are tolerated in the ideal Muslim earthly society - but as part of it, not outside it.

    Also, the way I read it, Al never said the Crusades were not Christian aggression. Aggression or defense, it's still a response to something Muslim imperialism started, according to Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aggression or defense, it's still a response to something Muslim imperialism started, according to Lewis.

    Lewis said it can be viewed as such, not that it is that. And this game can be played a different way, too; surely the Romans occupied large sections of the Middle East and fought wars of imperialism against the Arabs, among others? So therefore, the Arab conquests can be viewed as a response to something the Romans started. Or Alexander the Great. Or Sargon. I can't see the Arabs "starting" anything.

    ReplyDelete
  9. - Lewis said it can be viewed as such, not that it is that.

    That's the point of proper attribution in any case. I don't have the book with me, I read it at a library, and got those direct quotes from online reviews. I'd go into more detail for more accuracy, but I can't. It's no polemic against Islam, don't get it wrong.

    - I can't see the Arabs "starting" anything.

    If Islam had never been founded, would there have been "Crusades" still? In the sense of imperialism hand-in-hand with Christianity, I say yes - see the Spanish conquests of the Americas and Southeast Asia.

    Was the rise of Islam influenced by Western activities in the past, like dominoes falling one after another? I dunno. Did "the Arabs" start it all? Well, Muhammad was "an" Arab, if I'm not mistaken, and he said God (through Gabriel) told him what to do...

    The spread of Islam meant the spread of Arabic culture for sure, starting with the language and script. But were/are Muslims "under" the Arab world the same way as colonial peoples in the Roman and Spanish empires were "under" Rome and Spain?

    Perhaps this is going off the mark since this came into effect centuries later, but the various Southeast Asian sultanates (Malacca, Aceh, Brunei, Sulu, etc.) were/are part of the Muslim world, but not the "Arab Empire" (besides, Islam was spread in their areas by traders). Links between different Muslim cultures, yes, but not an empire identified with a single politically hegemonic state (Arabia?)

    Lewis argues that there was no (or not so much) "hand-in-hand with the state" thing going on with the Muslim conquests. Christianity had "make disciples of all nations", but it (the church) was not at first identified with the state, that is Rome ("Render unto Caesar...") In its case, Islam was in effect the state. According to Lewis at least.

    ---

    As for Tolkien, I'll have to read ROTK again but the people of Lossarnach were "shorter and somewhat swarthier" than the rest of the people Pippin saw in Gondor. Théoden's mother was one of them. But they weren't outsiders, they were vassals. Wasn't Dol Amroth a Numenoran colony? I forget about Pelargir, it's possible they're similar to the Lossarnach folk.

    Still, even supposing that these were "darker" in the sense that Conan is "darker" than the Aesir or Vanir, the Southrons and Easterlings are still not Orcs. Gollum says they are nastier than Orcs, but that's Gollum speaking; there's the scene where Sam feels empathy for a dead Southron (given to Faramir in the movie), and unlike the Orcs they are offered quarter at the final battles, but fight to the death instead.

    ReplyDelete
  10. what I don't understand is.. why does anyone even care.. and why is Salon reviewing Fan-Fiction in the first place?

    If this had been written in any western country with half decent copyright law Christopher would have gotten it squashed as easily as Salinger got Swedish Catcher in the Rye fan fiction squashed.

    this has no more merit than any other worthless bit of Fan-Fiction floating around on the internet postulating all sorts of things.. like spike and angel shacking up and leaving poor buffy cold.. its the exact same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lewis argues that there was no (or not so much) "hand-in-hand with the state" thing going on with the Muslim conquests.

    I'm sure he argues that for early Muslim conquests at least. Not sure about the Ottomans, Seljuks, Mughals, etc. since I don't have the book.

    ....we'd be obliged to jettison the entire Arthurian mythos,,.

    In the distilled version of the legend, Arthur was born to be king (he's the prince of the universe), but the monarchical system didn't guarantee a virtuous ruler either. He needed Merlin just as Aragorn needed tutelage from Elrond, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Already existed in ancient Greece and definitely in Rome.

    Frankly, if you're going to reduce everything to "already existed in some form, this is just a refinement", then half of all inventions would have to be considered such. Might as well say James Watt's engine was just a "refinement" of Hero's Aeliopile. Also, how can things which are engineering developments not be scientific achievements? Is engineering not science?

    That's a rather incomplete view of the First Crusade. The Pope sent a Crusade, which did anything but militarily aid the Byzantines; when the Crusaders took over formerly Byzantine territory, they didn't return it to Byzantium but kept it for themselves. In other words, the Crusaders weren't recovering lost Byzantine territory, they were occupying Muslim territory to create their own kingdoms and principalities.

    This is exactly why I called the Crusades a complex situation. However, the fact remains that the Casus Belli was the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, which is an act of Muslim aggression. This, however, was reciprocated by Christian aggression which developed into a big ethno-cultural-religious scrum. The fact that the Christians didn't give the Byzantine territory back doesn't take away from the fact that they were sent there after the Seljuks conquered Byzantine territory.

    And, since the Seljuks didn't originate in Anatolia to begin with, one can't say that this is a political entity "retaking" Anatolia from the invading Romans.

    "Traditionally Christian"? That's a very short-term use of "traditional".

    A poor choice of words on my part: replace it with "formerly" then.

    And how, exactly, does a Muslim invasion of Spain justify a French and Norman invasion of Palestine?

    Nobody said it did! As you're no doubt aware, there's far more to the crusades than the occupation of Jerusalem, and it deals with many invasions and atrocities on both sides. A Muslim invasion of Spain and Sicily doesn't justify the French/Norman invasion of Palestine: what, then, justifies the Muslim invasion of Spain and Sicily?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I still don't see what they should be blamed for. The Crusades were a religious was of aggression, in which Christian knights attacked non-Christians for the crime of being non-Christian. It's really hard to get much more aggressive than that.

    I emphatically agree: however, accepting that the Christians embarked on campaigns of invasion of Muslim lands does not contradict the fact that the Muslims were embarking on campaigns of invasion of Christian lands. That's what I was meaning by not calling the Muslims "innocent, blameless victims."

    I'll leave the historical arguments to those with a better grounding in it. But I wholly agree with the statement above. And even if it doesn't apply to life, it certainly applies to *fiction*. The point of Mordor is to be unrepentantly, awfully, unashamedly evil. I'm not a big one for ascribing authorial intent, but in this case, I think Tolkien is being clear what the Evil Empire stands for: EVIL.

    Cheers, Jared!

    You could've read the text in the time it took to write this lengthy "review of the review".

    The review only took an hour or so to write up: the story's 140,000 words. Still, the spirit of your sentiment is true!

    Lewis said it can be viewed as such, not that it is that. And this game can be played a different way, too; surely the Romans occupied large sections of the Middle East and fought wars of imperialism against the Arabs, among others? So therefore, the Arab conquests can be viewed as a response to something the Romans started. Or Alexander the Great. Or Sargon. I can't see the Arabs "starting" anything.

    That would indeed apply to the Greek and Roman world, but not of the lands which had hitherto never been set foot upon by Arab or Muslim feet.

    what I don't understand is.. why does anyone even care.. and why is Salon reviewing Fan-Fiction in the first place?

    God, I dunno. I think it's because I wanted to discuss The Last Ringbearer, and this was the first link in Google Alerts for me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Before reductionist arguments about the crusades go any further (and Bernard Lewis made some of them--see his debates with Edward Said), I urge you all to read this little piece on the matter:

    http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch2.html

    "..the crusading movement itself was not dictated by any one party but was a true discourse in which the idea and image of the crusade was constantly recast and recreated in a dialogue between various groups in their quest for differing goals."

    I recommend John-Riley Smith's "What were the Crusades?", a short but essential book on the subject by one of the most influential crusade historians. (He's also noted for saying Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven", was, well, "absolute balls").

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, The Last Ringbearer is pretty much fecal material.

    Critique of Tolkien? Fine. But do it an essay, not in the guise of (bad) fanfic.

    By bad, I mean, Eye of Argon bad. The writing is just plain shit, clumsy, artless, and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The Salon reviewer either has zero taste, or (I suspect) is being quite disingenuous in her falling over herself desire to slag Tolkien.

    Has anyone actually read this? I tried, and failed. Here's a paragraph, taken absolutely at random (I literally scrolled through blindly, and copied and pasted), to show the quality of the writing:

    Kumai came to only three days later in a Rohani hospital tent, lying side by side with the three riders he felled; the steppe warriors made no distinction between the wounded and treated them all equally. Unfortunately, in this case it meant ‘equally bad:’ the engineer’s head was in bad shape, but the only medicine he got during that time was a flagon of wine brought by Cornet Jorgen who had captured him. The cornet voiced hope that once the Engineer Second Class was healed he would honor him with another fight, preferably with a weapon more traditional than a pole. Certainly he can be free within the confines of the camp, on his word as an officer… However, a week later the Rohirrim left on the Mordorian campaign, to win the crown of the Reunited Kingdom for Aragorn, and that same day Kumai and all the other wounded were sent to the Mindolluin quarry. Gondor was already a civilized country, unlike the backward Rohan…

    ReplyDelete
  16. On another note of interest, Dr. Yeskov's essay on why he wrote the book linked below. To call "The Last Ringbearer" fanfiction is, in fact, a mistake.

    http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/273409.html

    As for questions of translation, I've looked at excerpts from the Polish translation, which is nearer to Russian, and unless the Polish translation is also garbage, I'm afraid the fault for the clunky prose is not entirely the translator's.

    "C zyż istnieje na świecie piękniejszy widok niż zachód słońca na pustyni, gdy, jakby wstydząc się swej jaskrawej południowej mocy, zaczyna pieścić człowieka garściami barw o niewyobrażalnej czystości i delikatności!"

    That, my friends, also makes my head hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Before reductionist arguments about the crusades go any further (and Bernard Lewis made some of them--see his debates with Edward Said), I urge you all to read this little piece on the matter:

    It's impossible to reduce the Crusades, which is what I've been (doing a terrible job of) arguing. That said, excellent link, Taran, if a little Euro/Christio-centric (perhaps the point). In any case, I think the argument is in extreme danger of ballooning into something beyond the bounds of the original article, so I'll just call it a day, unless Michael has a final thought. Suffice to say, the Crusades were a complete and utter mess and resulted in a lot of lives lost on both sides.

    I had problems with Kingdom of Heaven, even the Director's Cut, so I can imagine their disdain for the film.

    Critique of Tolkien? Fine. But do it an essay, not in the guise of (bad) fanfic.

    I note that there's another work out there called "Mirkwood" which is apparently the same sort of thing, critique of Tolkien in the guise of fiction. Mirkwood, however, appears to want to take Tolkien to task for perceived sexism. I can hardly wait for that to make it onto PDF...

    On another note of interest, Dr. Yeskov's essay on why he wrote the book linked below. To call "The Last Ringbearer" fanfiction is, in fact, a mistake.

    Jings, you aren't kidding. "Hate-fiction" is probably a better word. I particularly love how he wrote the story for "skeptics and agnostics brought up on Hemingway and brothers Strugatzky, for whom Tolkien is only a charming, albeit slightly tedious, writer of children’s books."

    Suddenly everything makes so much sense. The man seems determined to find inconsistencies that don't exist in the books. Take his ludicrous demand to know about Rohan's economy: do we really need to know the details? Is it really such a leap to just assume that they existed in pretty much the same way countless Germanic horse tribes have existed since ancient times - or is that beyond Yeskov's imagination?

    An intriguing essay I'll have to discuss - or perhaps yourself or Brian could take the helm?

    "C zyż istnieje na świecie piękniejszy widok niż zachód słońca na pustyni, gdy, jakby wstydząc się swej jaskrawej południowej mocy, zaczyna pieścić człowieka garściami barw o niewyobrażalnej czystości i delikatności!"

    That, my friends, also makes my head hurt.


    You'll, uh, have to elaborate for me and other non-Slavophones...

    ReplyDelete
  18. well.. Al, I wasn't questioning why YOU specifically were discussing it.. just why it was being discussed in general.. or being held up as some how being important.. Those paragons of liberal/marxist-drivel/virtues at Westeros.org of course seem to love it.. but that's unsurprising.. they probably like Spinrad's the Iron Dream too.

    But the question is, did he have the permission of the Tolkien Estate to write it? was it Commissioned by Christopher Tolkien?

    I mean people jumped all over Dennis Mckeirnan for essentially fleshing out the battle of Fornost in his Iron Tower series.. and it was.. well.. actually good.

    If it's not fanfic, it's Unauthorized certainly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No problem, Lagomorph, I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I believe the reason is that the book HAS been published in Russia, and that they were looking to publish it in English before the Tolkien Estate swooped down like Thorondor.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Unfortunately the copyright situation in Russia is one of the reasons I'm really hoping they will soon be admitted to the WTO.. one of the main requirements is of course, a crackdown on these sorts of "Unauthorized" projects.. Which apparently are far more common than just this one.. this one has simply been translated into English and has gained notoriety because of it.

    It perhaps isn't fanfiction in the strictest sense of the word because of its having been published in Russia.. but it wears the uniform of Fanfaction just assuredly as any of the crap my sister ever wrote for whatever anime she was wetting herself over that week.

    I always questioned what made her feel she had the right to play in some one elses sandbox without permission.. and it's a question I'm still waiting on an answer too.

    Thing is, in Japan they have an entire cottage industry around these sorts of dubiously legal publishings.. they call them Dojinshi's and they tend to simply present some one elses characters engaging in all manner of deviant sexual acts, or simply do what this has done and try and rehabilitate the bad guy as some one who is just misunderstood.. but comes around once he has had sex with the nubile catgirl in the school girl uniform who the real series was about..

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think it's also some what disengenous to do this sort of thing instead of writing his very own story. Had he have taken the effort to craft a story based around his Magic Vs Technology angle.. even including in the idea of the misunderstood or simply slandered "dark lord" it could have been a good story.. Instead he's just some Russian chap who decided Tolkien just hadn't a clue about Tolkien's own stories..

    I do recommend he lay off the Marxist kool-aid though.. last time I checked, his side lost.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "An intriguing essay I'll have to discuss - or perhaps yourself or Brian could take the helm?"

    I must sadly decline. I wasted enough time rebuking Alpers, and to do such a thing I would have to read "The Last Ringbearer" in its entirety--something I am most certainly not willing to do.

    It seems to have done well enough in Poland. I've found bizarre Polish reviews of "The Lord of the Rings" dating back to the 70s about "proletariat orcs" and the evil, backwards "bourgois" hobbits. One even claimed Saruman tried to bring a "socialist revolution" to the Shire (of the Stalinist kind, I guess) In a post-communist climate, it seems Yeskov's work might have been inevitable. He's not even the first--there are many more published Middle Earth "hate-fics" in Russia that predate "The Last Lord of the Ring" ('cause that's what the title actually translates to, or the Polish one, at least), born from the same kind of spite. Attempts to appropriate LOTR for "the East", ignoring the rich fantasy tradition already there, instead continuing the fetishism of economics started by a "western" philosopher via Russian-reversals of a "western" work.

    Sigh. Just one small reason why my family left the land of the Baba Jaga, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, God damn you, Taranaich. After writing the above, I've suddenly started working on a long post on the subject, which means I've begun suffering through the bloody thing.

    It isn't any better when you read it as a cultural artifact. Gah!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unfortunately the copyright situation in Russia is one of the reasons I'm really hoping they will soon be admitted to the WTO.. one of the main requirements is of course, a crackdown on these sorts of "Unauthorized" projects

    I agree, personally, even though I'm not really a big copyright guy. Doing copyright law on my degree course left me hating the entire thing.

    Oh, God damn you, Taranaich. After writing the above, I've suddenly started working on a long post on the subject, which means I've begun suffering through the bloody thing.

    Bwahahaha, I knew it!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm about a third of the way into it, and have to confess that I'm finding it an entertaining read, even if it's not brilliant literature. I'm willing to forgive some of the awkward prose as poor translation and have read enough secondary-world fantasy to be used to large chunks of indigestible exposition.

    What I like about it is that it DOES fix what I agree is a flaw in Tolkein's work by giving at least somewhat realistic motivations to each side. To each his own, but I never found "Sauron is evil because he's evil" to be very compelling.

    As a sometimes writer myself I DO want to stand up for intellectual property rights, but I don't see how the Tolkein estate has any moral right to the late JRR's work. Eighteenth century literature built on a variety of classical and Biblical texts; in my mind infinitely-extended copyrights prevent us from building on the new classical works of the early to mid-twentiety centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm about a third of the way into it, and have to confess that I'm finding it an entertaining read, even if it's not brilliant literature. I'm willing to forgive some of the awkward prose as poor translation and have read enough secondary-world fantasy to be used to large chunks of indigestible exposition.

    Fair enough. I am a Brian Lumley fan, after all.

    What I like about it is that it DOES fix what I agree is a flaw in Tolkein's work by giving at least somewhat realistic motivations to each side. To each his own, but I never found "Sauron is evil because he's evil" to be very compelling.

    I always felt Sauron's motivations were the same as Satan's in Paradise Lost - power. After being seduced by Morgoth, Sauron wanted to trade deference to Eru and the other Valar in favour of domination of his own land. When the Valar decided to stop getting involved in Middle-earth matters, Sauron decided he could make Middle-earth his own Valinor, and fashion it in his image.

    As a sometimes writer myself I DO want to stand up for intellectual property rights, but I don't see how the Tolkein estate has any moral right to the late JRR's work.

    I don't think they have any more or less rights than other copyright holders of deceased authors. However, as to whether *any* copyright holders to dead authors should have rights, well, that's another question - one I might address in future.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't really have that big of a problem with people borrowing elements of others.. what I have a problem with is inviting themselves over to play in the sandbox when the original author isn't home anymore to defend their sandbox.

    I feel it's more of a moral question than anything.. I immensely dislike books like Wicked and all these Classics + Zombies novels that are all the rage right now.

    However, that said, I'm not sure if I'd be so thrilled to get new middle earth tales that I'd ignore Christopher writing them or not.. It's hard to say.

    But beyond that, I'm content with Sauron being evil just cause he got stuck at the chair with the black hat on it when the music stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll admit, I didn't read the entire blog post, but my response is based on what other people have said about it...

    I read it cover to cover and it was fun. Great literature? Not at all. I doubt I'll read it again (unlike with LoTRs).

    But as was noted above, I've never been entirely satisfied with Suaron's motivation (pure evul?), nor with the explanations of why the Elves fought so enthusiastically to user in the Age of Man. So this book fleshes that out.

    It helps to appreciate the "The Last Ringbearer" if you've appreciated any Russian novels. The middle third of the satire is pure ham-fisted cloak and dagger and revisionist history, reminded me a bit of The Nose.

    The basis for the book, an analysis of the geography and how that would inform the economics and societies of middle earth was fascinating.

    I think people's reaction to this story will depend upon the extent to which the lionize good ol' Saint Tolkien. But I welcomed the opportunity to see Middle Earth through new and perhaps somewhat jaundiced eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  29. (same anonymous as before)

    I didn't see Satan's motive in "Paradise Lost" to be power so much as vengeance. I read Milton's Satan as angry, defeated, and hateful whose famous statement about it being better to rule in hell than serve in heaven was nothing more than sour grapes. He struck back out of anger, nothing much more.

    In terms of rights of dead authors, I meant that I feel *all* works should revert to the public domain on the author's death at the very latest. I have no issue whatsoever with Wicked, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, or with Milton borrowing from the anonymous authors of the Hebrew Bible for that matter.

    I'm not sure why Lord Rabbit sees a moral issue in borrowing the setting of a dead author. I can see the issue of taste, but I for one think that if an author today wanted to write a a story in which Miss Marple and James Bond team up with Captain Nemo to investigate the sunken city if R'lyeh there's no reason not to.

    And I found middle of The Last Ringbearer to be distractingly anachronistic, but I'm still curious enough that I'll likely finish it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/02/yeskovs-middle-earth.html

    ^A counterpoint to Miller's review, and a better representation of what the book is like.

    I have to say, reading this, that hippy Radagast was funny. I think I'll track down the Polish translation; despite the above misgivings, it's actually rendered in a coherent fashion, if a bit flat.

    ReplyDelete
  31. http://onelastsketch.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/eastern-european-fantasy-post-tolkien/

    Ugggghhhhh. That took longer than expected.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Definitely don't bother reading. It's got everything you said wrong with it, accompanied by atrocious writing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'd have to make some comments, based on actually reading the Last Ringbearer English translation:
    1. I really like LotR. This book definitely hasn't changed that. As much as anything else, Tolkien's style of writing is brilliant.

    2. For that reason, much of what was written directly against the "LotR" view of the world I found very annoying. But it still compelled my interest, because some of it did fill or suggest interesting gaps in the story (though I didn't like all the gap fill).

    3. After a while, it becomes a story almost totally disconnected from the LotR (sharing about 5% of the world, and set in a part of the world that LotR was not set in). That part of the book is quite compelling, if far too overtly sexual and filled with profanity for my taste.

    4. As has been mentioned, sometimes following the plot can be very hard when it randomly switches from past to present or from character to character. It probably didn't help that I would pick up reading it every few weeks, but keeping track of all the espionage characters and whose side they were on was difficult (and sometimes concealed anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  34. Continued - silly size limit...
    5. In spite of a style of writing that wasn't always brilliant and had been translated, there are parts of it that flow beautifully and really compel you to keep reading (these are generally less concerned with the historical and background details, and are more an actual real story and a complex power struggle). I really liked how the author was in complete control of what was happening and how the conclusion would finally be reached. This is once hinted at in the initial Nazgul - Haladdin conference, but after that the story progresses towards the end without any real indication of how important parts will be achieved, but they are. The final plan shows the gentle touch of Haladdin, with the target achieved not by penetrating with force the almost impenetrable Elvish camp, but working through social engineering, persuasion, and the use of Mordorian technology that he didn't even know existed to get a palantir in there, and then the genius of sending the fire of Orodruin through the palantir to another palantir to destroy the mirror.

    6. Finally, the story is much more morally ambiguous than "the bad guys are now the good guys". Several of the main characters ponder more than once over the fact that they are doing bad things (including killing innocent people and even having to kill those on their own side who attack them without realising they are on the same side for "the greater good"). This in fact drives them further along the path they are on, since they realise that if at any point they give up they have betrayed all those they have wronged, and all that wrong has been done in vain - a very human characteristic and dilemma (putting time/money into a thing makes it more valuable to us - and so we can keep on with it even if it doesn't make sense). One of the key characters has a premonition the mission will lead to his death (which is correct) and struggles with whether he should abandon it and live out a normal life or not.

    In short, the switch between good guys and bad guys is too sudden and some of it lacks credibility and leads to a lot of tedious (if sometimes ingenious) explaining away of LotR. However, once past that it is actually a good story. The main reason I would not worry too much about it being a "derivative work" of LotR is that the best bits of the story are pretty much the author's own work, and rely on LotR for nothing more than a few place names.

    However, the Last Ringbearer is actually quite a fitting name, and Dr Haladdin is a good character forced into difficulties, very much in the mould of Frodo. He is very genuine, very sincere, and is trying to do the right thing. He just doesn't know what that right thing is, and whether the end justifies the means. The final scene is very like Frodo, having Haladdin on Mount Orodruin with a faithful servant, then (rather than desire for power, like Frodo had) being persuaded by Saruman that he wasn't sure putting the palantir in the fire was the right thing. Then it is ultimately accident that causes the palantir to go in. Afterwards, Haladdin withdraws a somewhat broken man and has to leave this life as he once knew it, again like Frodo. That's probably one of few parts that draws heavily on LotR and is still very good.

    I suddenly realise I've almost written a review myself. That must explain why it took so long! :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just finished reading the book this weekend. I enjoyed it, but mostly by not paying overly much attention to its connections to the original Tolkein novels. The names and places are shared, but not much else, so it's fairly easy to not dwell of the connections.

    So much of the book is spent on the cloak and dagger escapades in Umbar I was left feeling like the author really just wanted to write a spy novel but didn't want to create an entirely new fictional world to do it. As if the rest of the story was created simply to provide a reason for the cloak and dagger stuff to happen, but was mostly incidental. Anyways, that's how it struck me.

    ReplyDelete
  36. You've interpreted this book as some sort of attack on Tolkien's work. It is nothing of the sort. It's simply an alternate take on Middle Earth. I found it wonderful. Don't be such a fanboy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Lots of you guys treat Tolkiens stories like it was the holy bible and everyone who does some criticism is called a heretic. You seem to have a lack of humour.
    This book is about an alternate history of Midle earth. I read one third of it and it was entertaining and I had laughed a lot.
    I still think Tolkiens work is great, so what?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I read it and found it quite entertaining. I see it less as an attack on Tolkien but as a use of the Tolkienian setting for painting a certain picture of the conflict between Russia and the West. The Elves for example are clearly stand-ins for the Nazis. The historical excursions into the history of Harad draw strongly on European colonialism in Africa (but this time with the Zulu winning and uniting the continent). Biased? Of course. But finding the real world parallels (some quite subtle, others definitely not) is part of the fun (even if one does not share the author's views).
    as for the wizards, they actually show up only twice and are only secondary players. By giving the mirror to Galadriel at the beginning, they essentially take themselves out of the game and become more or less passive observers.
    Aragorn is not downright evil but a Machiavellian pragmatist not even fully free in his actions. At the end, when the elvish influence and magic disappear, he steers his empire along the path Mordor had follewed before, i.e. science and technology. Talk about inevitability.

    ReplyDelete