The Word For World Is "West"

Sigh.

I suppose I might as well, eh? 

Almost ten years on, this post is becoming more and more prophetic.

Khand and Rhûn and Harad Too

More information regarding the upcoming The Lord of the Rings series, now subtitled The Rings of Power, has emerged. The response has been predictably polarised between folk excited to see any new Middle-earth content, and unreconstructed individuals who think the people of Middle-earth were ethnically monolithic in their nature. Unfortunately, as is the standard for modern internet discourse, there is little room for nuance. Folk wonder why people are so easily radicalised nowadays, yet the immediate reaction is "SJW/PC/Woke nonsense" on one hand, and "racist/reactionary/privileged bigotry" on the other - leaving folk to either search for a middle ground that serves nothing and only perpetuates the idea of the two poles in the first place, or naturally find themselves caught in one pole's gravity in the end.

The essential issue is one, I think, of intellectual laziness that borders on timidity - of wanting the veneer of diversity, progressiveness, and inclusion, but stopping short of anything beyond the bare minimum. The problem, for me, is not the mere presence of ethnic minorities - far from it. 

The problem is it doesn't go nearly far enough.

The Lord of the Rings Series: Wild Extrapolations

Three Rings for the Elfin-kings unner the sky,

Seiven for the Droich-lairds in thair haws of stane,

Nine for Mortal Men duimit tae dee,

Ane for the Daurk Laird oan his daurk throne

In the Laund of Mordor whaur the Shadaes lig.

Ane Ring tae rowl thaim aw, Ane Ring tae find thaim,

Ane Ring tae bring thaim aw an' in the mirkness bind thaim

In the Laund of Mordor whaur the Shadaes lie. 

 - The Laird of the Rings (in Scots) - I can dream, eh?

I think I got most of my emotional reaction to any new Tolkien adaptation news out of my system a while ago, especially given how franchises operate nowadays. Rather than being excited or dismayed, I feel a strange sense of confidence - that "ah, I've been here before" sensation. It could be good. Or, it might not. We will see.

What do we know about the series? We know next to nothing.

Swords & Sorority

"When I was younger, as well as liking Conan, I was a fan of Red Sonja," says Scott. "so I do firmly believe that if you're writing a fantasy book, if you can't have an axe-wielding barbarian woman in a chainmail bikini - and the chainmail bikini is very important - then there's no point in writing it, really."
 - Christopher Wright, and while I suspect he's being a little facetious, he's being far too subtle about it

I like “pulp” and “Sword and Sorcery” in all its gory, sexist, glory. Big, awesome barbarians, though an occasional wizard or rouge can slip in. Women are to be barmaids, princesses, slave girls, dancers, victims to be rescued, etc. Blacks and MezoAmerican like peoples are either rare “Noble Savages” or hideous cannibals with filed teeth. Orientals are sinister characters, though their women look hot but unless they are “Rescued sacrifice victim” also very sinister. Of course, awesome “Noble Savages” think Kubotai from “Conan the Barbarian”! Mix in lovecraft, westerns, maybe some not too queer Burroughs like stuff…
Really, do women, blacks, orientals, Mexicans, etc. buy “Heroic Fantasy/Sci-Fi” enough that the damage of not sucking sucking sucking up to them will be less than the damage of alienating your base customer market?
 - Green Gestalt on John O'Neill's post on Realms of Fantasy

I don't see posts like this very often, but when I do, they leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm reminded of the Cross Assault sexual harassment scandal over which the Internet had once again exploded (one wonders how the series of tubes could survive all these conflagrations):

Those are jokes and if you were really a member of the fighting game community, you would know that. This is a community that's, you know, 15 or 20 years old, and the sexual harassment is part of a culture, and if you remove that from the fighting game community, it's not the fighting game community — it's StarCraft."
 - Bakhtanians "justifying" the concerted verbal abuse which caused a fellow player to drop out

Sword-and-Sorcery has often been accused of being one of those genres that belongs to the past, a different time when "all men are strong, all women beautiful, all life adventurous, and all problems simple." Sword-and-Sorcery, some might say, is outdated, an embarrassment, relevant in our more enlightened times only to show how far we've come since the bad old days of 1950s advertisements.

Then again...

Is sexism inherent to Sword-and-Sorcery? It's the sort of thing many have wrestled with in print and on the 'Net. Well, I figure the best way to address that is talk about my favourite female Sword-and-Sorcery characters, hopefully showing that not only is Sword-and-Sorcery not the exclusive domain of manly men, but that it never was. And since it's International Women's Day, it seems appropriate to post some of my favourites.

The Lord of the Rings: An Alternate Timeline

It's J.R.R. Tolkien's twelvety-first birthday, and it's amazing to think how the Middle-earth franchise has changed in a scant decade. Sure, there were multiple video games, board games and the like before the films, but nothing like the volume of other franchises. For most of its years, Middle-earth has enjoyed a sort of sanctity, with Tolkien afforded his deserved place as Sub-Creator, any derivative efforts considered exactly that. Middle-earth Role-Playing introduced several characters, names, places and ideas, but nobody tried to say it was "canon." And Tolkien's been lucky: nobody's been trying to horn in on his status, claiming to be "co-creators" of Middle-earth, or that their fan-fiction is just as good as his, if not better. Though there is someone who is unfairly saddled with that label.

Locus Online's 2012 All Centuries Poll is Very Confusing

Courtesy of Black Gate, I came across Lotus' latest write-in poll for The Best Fantasy/Science Fiction works of the 20th and 21st centuries. I say works, because although they say it's "a poll for the best novels and short fiction of the 20th and 21st centuries, with five categories in each century: SF novel, fantasy novel, novella, novelette, and short story," I can't find much distinction between novel, novella, novelette or short story - not to mention a few other confusing elements.

Read on for the results.

Connor Coyne's Oberservations on Conan

I thought I'd share this interesting little link by author Connor Coyne (what a name!) which discusses Howard in context with Tolkien. I can't seem to log in to comment, so I'm going to take the liberty of doing so here.
Of course, Connor is only discussing The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, and so he still has some great stories to look forward to should he wish to go on to the next stories.

In terms of the writing: Tolkien’s epics took place in “Middle-Earth” which had hints of but little direct connection to the present world, while Howard’s Conan stories took place in the Hyborian Age which was explicitly placed in a period of barbarism and empire-building that occurred between the fall of the continent of Atlantis and the rise of the ancient civilizations we know; these explicit references are most conspicuous in names we recognize from legend and history: Argos, Corinthia, Himaleya, Zimbabwe, and others.  Not only did Tolkien write novels, but he envisioned all of these novels being joined by subject matter and common history into an organic whole. Howard works were almost uniformly short stories, and while it is possible to read these as part of an organic whole, he preferred an episodic presentation that emphasized narrative unreliability.  Tolkien was quite comfortable deferring to magic as accounting for miraculous events; Howard posits a sort of invisible cosmic ground-state which makes magic-seeming events possible. Tolkien’s gods are unassailable, unreachable, and in fact, only angelic (and demoniac) messengers for a higher power that is only mentioned by name once. Howard’s gods intrude upon the world, and do battle with mortals in a way that is not only corporeal, but which expands the definition of the physical rather than constricting that of the spiritual. And so forth.  There are many differences.

 While it is indeed not as explicit as in the Hyborian Age, Tolkien's Middle-earth is indeed set in the distant past of this world. Also, it's the Himelian mountains, not "Himaleya," and Zimbabwe was later rendered Zembabwei in "The Servants of Bit-Yakin," but I left my pedant-lock key on as I was typing.

The most significant difference, however, I thought, is the different take on morality. I recall Carpenter’s biography of Tolkien, at least, saw much significance in his Catholicism, and that the various ranks and orders of beings, good and evil, in Middle Earth, was a validation of the Catholic cosmological order via Tolkien’s own thoroughly British upbringing.  Whereas in Conan, while morality is present, it is subjective, in flux, and almost post-modern.  The main conflict is not so much good vs. evil as barbarism vs. civilization.  The chief difference here between barbarism and civilization isn’t any notion of mercy, or compassion, or empathy, or cooperation; it is a difference of regimentation, and as a result, barbarism doesn’t dissemble. So we are meant to relate to the barbarian, and not the sorcerers, monarchs, pirates, and monsters with whom he contends.

In fact, Conan himself is often not sympathetic, although he probably has something closer to what we’d call a “conventional” morality than most of the other characters. But he’s not above, say, genocide (as in “Vale of the Lost Women”).

I definitely disagree that Conan was advocating genocide in "Vale." Obviously Conan's at his most dastardly in this story, but the destruction of the Bakalah by the Bamula is really little different from the endemic warfare of countless historical tribes throughout history. Obviously hardly morally defensible, but there's a difference in degree here. Conan hates the Picts more than any other people, but you never hear him call for their extermination as king despite him being entirely capable of doing so.

Curiously, this solved a big problem I have with most high fantasy: How is it that characters meant to embody all that is good and pure — to the extent of making huge personal sacrifices to save the world — are grim killing machines. And I don’t even mean “the good soldier” so much; you don’t see hints of pathos or PTSD after Aragorn, or Drizzt Do’Urden, or Aslan, or whoever kills their 999th orc. This is most often explained away as “all members of X race are evil,” and maybe that passed as acceptable in the decades surrounding the Civil Rights era, but in 2012 it seems deeply troubling on even casual examination. Other high fantasy strategies to reconcile this seem equally wanting.

Tolkien wrestled with the matter of the orcs all his life, but the reason you don't see hints of pathos or PTSD after Aragorn because this is a world where evil is practically a quantifiable matter, and an entire race is evil explicitly because they were "created" (or rather, abducted and raised en masse) by a supremely evil being, that perversion of life and robbing of free choice being considered one of Morgoth and Sauron's greatest crimes. Aragorn can sleep at night because he knows that if he doesn't, all he loves will be lost or destroyed. That said, there's definitely an element of regret when it came to the Haradrim and Easterlings, who were either deceived or actively enthralled to Sauron.

Conan partially solves this problem by making the protagonist consistently erratic and violent (though surprisingly, never amoral). I never see him as embodying all that is good and pure, but rather all that is barbaric and pure, and this makes his internal logic plausible. It also gives some measure of cover to Howard writing as a product of his time and place, which is to say, often much more explicitly racist than Tolkien ever was (we’re talking about a man who grew up in rural Texas boom-towns, and witnessed lynchings).

There is no evidence Howard ever personally witnessed a lynching, but the sheer pervasiveness and virulence of racism in the world during that time period and environment means that Howard's views must be properly contextualised.

However, the real reason I'm doing this post is to give proper praise to this:

...this being “low fantasy” did not prevent it from engaging in poetic, powerful language and grand philosophical themes. Although action-oriented in the manner of (though with much better craft than) TSR-fare, there is a tightly controlled correspondence between the words and actions of the characters.  Conan typically prevails because he is typically direct and straightforward; his battle prowess is as much a symptom of this transparency of character as it is his upbringing. Other characters weave byzantine plots only to dramatically fail when they learn that the realities the universe has created for the villains are no more stable than the “realities” they use to trap their victims. A sort of cosmic version of “getting caught in a lie.” There’s a lot of lush, powerful, rich, almost pungent imagery here, but beneath the beautiful writing is an ongoing discussion of Things That Matter.  And also interestingly (I’m using that word a lot) this comes forth all the clearer in the “weaker” Conan stories — those featuring little plot except an extra-dimensional monster and a naked damsel — because the Big Questions continue to get play even when the pulp clichès ride heavy.  So the lesson there, I suppose, is that I can depart from a “high fantasy” writing style without abandoning, or even mitigating, thematic depth.

Couldn't agree more, Mr Coyne.

A Century and a Score

James over at Grognardia already took the obvious path for a title (damn, wish I thought of that) but I figure Tolkien's twelvetieth birthday was a good time to post some musings I had over Middle-earth. I posted this on another forum, but I figure I'd share it here too, after having made some revisions.

A common complaint I've heard made about Middle-earth, and fantasy settings in general, is stagnation. They claim that there simply isn't enough progress: not enough scientific investigation, no new technological innovations, not even major social upheavals, like you see in "real" history. I never had a problem with Middle-earth's technological progression, personally.  It's extremely difficult to progress when, every few millenia (or even centuries), your entire world is torn to pieces in nothing less than cataclysmic events, where countless lives are lost and the very geography of a continent is altered.

Something of the glamour of a crusade...

One of the more contentious aspects of The Blog That Time Forgot (well, me) is my propensity to go on crusades to enlighten, correct or otherwise address people that get things wrong.  In the past, I've been criticized for it - "The Blog That Does Nothing But Whine" being a zinger that still zings a bit to this day - but I've been doing my best to bite my tongue unless I find something that has to be dealt with.

Luckily, I'm not alone in this. Damon Sasser of Two-Gun Raconteur has regularly commented on these situations on the 'Net, and my Cimmerian Blog compatriot Brian Murphy goes for the jugular when it comes to J.R.R. Tolkien, as evidenced by two recent posts, one addressing a Class 3 Camper, another barely containing his irritation at Evangeline Lilly's latest comments.  I must admit, I tend to grit my teeth whenever I see Evangeline Lilly at the best of times, so I can sympathise. However, there's been something of a backlog building up with People Who Are Wrong On The Internet, and rather than dedicate a number of posts to any one of them, perhaps it would be better to deal with them in one place.

Looks like I'm not alone against the Game of Thrones pundits

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
 - Harlan Ellison

No sooner do I have my say about the useless media coverage around A Game of Thrones, then Cimmerian Shield Wall alum Brian Murphy has a comprehensive round-up of some of the absolute worst, some of which I was going to comment on, but then I realised Brian did more in his swift dismissal than I could. Especially since most, like that utterly odious piece from The Guardian (that old Bête Noire) which I hated the most for its attempt to come off as so very mature that ends up doing the very opposite, aren't even worth the effort of point-by-point disintegration.

Luckily, there are others.

Tolkien Estate not to blame for Buttongate

I'm not going to say I told you so, mostly because I... didn't tell you so, and it would be fallacious of me to claim otherwise. However, I maintain that the gist of my argument - that one shouldn't immediately blame Christopher Tolkien for all the challenges made by the multi-media empire which has arisen from The Lord of the Rings franchise - is sound, because according to one of the Tolkien estate's lawyers, the Tolkien Estate apparently had nothing to do with the recent controversy regarding buttons. So nyeh.

This morning I heard from Steven Maier, partner at the Oxford law firm of Manches LLP, on behalf of the Tolkien estate. He wrote to say that the estate was not involved in Zazzle's takedown of a badge reading "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion." According to Maier, "Zazzle has confirmed that it took down the link of its own accord, because its content management department came across the product and deemed it to be potentially infringing."

Which is odd, because Adam Rakunas's post on the subject implied that Zazzle had told him they'd written on behalf of Tolkien's heirs. I've written to both Rakunas and Zazzle for an update.

I suspected Zazzle was more to blame than this, simply because you hear a lot about companies taking down content as a preemptive measure against claims of copyright infringement.  They're so anxious that a claim could be made that they do it themselves.  You see it all the time on Youtube.

That said...

I'm sorry for misidentifying the Tolkien estate as responsible for this inanity. While they have used copyright threats to censor at least three novels tangentially involving Tokien's characters or personage (that I know of), this button wasn't their fault, it was Zazzle's.

For Christ's sake, could they have picked a more loaded word than "censor"? I'm aware of The Last Ringbearer and Mirkwood, but what's the third one?  And can they really be considered only tangentially involving Tolkien's characters or personage?

Again, I'm not commenting on the moral/ethical/whatever rights of the Tolkien estate to protect the creation of a man who's been dead for almost 40 years, but I strictly believe that in the eyes of the law, they have a fair point.

Dan Meth's Fantasy World Map

Just thought I'd link to this, since it's pretty cool.  Dan Meth has previously done a similar, awesome timeline of science fiction films, so I guess this was a matter of time.

First thought: Holy Smokes he has Sodor!
Second thought: Holy Smokes he has Thra!
Third thought: Wait, he has Terabithia as a real place?

Tolkien Fanfics A-Go-Go - Mirkwood: A Novel About JRR Tolkien

I feel I may as well talk about the other big Tolkien story this week, get it out of my system.

Steve Hillard's Mirkwood: A Novel About JRR Tolkien differs from The Last Ringbearer in that it's written by an actual author, as opposed to a palaeontologist writing fan-fiction for a larf which took on a life of its own and got published in Russia and other non-English-speaking countries. It's also different in that it's actually been published in America.  However, the Tolkien Estate has swooped in again and said "no, sir, not allowed." As bloggers aetherwide would have it, this is yet another case of the Tolkien Estate's infamously protective stance against copyright infringement.

But is that really what's going on?

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?

Two Towers: Addendum

As a follow-up to my Tolkien post, I want to give props to sword-brother Brian Murphy.  Brian's talking about the Argonath of Modern Fantasy, J.R.R. Tolkien and Robert E. Howard, over at Black Gate, and he mentions the seminal Tompkins essay.  A really excellent, heartfelt overview that chimes with my own thoughts.  Good on ya, Brian!

As an aside, be sure to check the comments section, where Scott Taylor makes the... interesting suggestion that Minas Rowling somehow topples Barad-Howard and Tolkiengard in terms of impact on fantasy fiction.  Erm, okay.

The Shortest Distance Between Two Towers

It's that time of year again: J.R.R. Tolkien's birthday.  I really wanted to get a Barbarians article done, but as you may have noticed, I've been a bit preoccupied.  So instead, I'll point you to some of my favourite Tolkien links.

First, the Encyclopedia of Arda.  This was my inspiration for the Encyclopaedia Hyboriana, in that it would be "like that, but for the Hyborian Age."  It's the only Tolkien resource I really trust: Yavanna's blessings on the Tolkien Gateway and myriad Tolkien Wikis out there, but you never know what weird fanboy musings will end up contaminating a perfectly good wiki.

Second, Lalaith's Middle-earth Science Pages.  This is another site in the vein of the EoA, except it takes it a step further, and presents scholarly theories on Middle-earth ethnology, natural history and geography.  It's pretty much the Hyborian Age Gazetteer for Middle-earth.

My last link isn't to a site, but an essay. I'm delighted to discover that Steve Tompkins' award-winning masterpiece, "The Shortest Distance Between Two Towers," is now online and freely available for anyone to read.  In my mind, this is the Tolkien-Howard essay.  In just under 9,000 words, Tompkins details exactly why, although both authors are very different in many ways, they absolutely deserve to be considered on equal footing with each other.  Too often you get the snooty Lord of the Rings fanboys who decry Howard's work as little more than Puerile Adolescent Wish Fulfillment, but just as wrong to me are the Conan fanboys who consider Tolkien's work as nothing but Childish Mollycoddling Fairytale.  Tompkins also puts forward why he considers Tolkien and Howard both as Sword-and-Sorcery (and, contrarian that I am, I have taken to it myself), as well as some brilliantly insightful comparisons of the two authors' work and lives.

I know it must get grating for me to constantly harp on about Tompkins' genius, but honestly, it speaks for itself.  I might disagree with one or two things, but they're vastly outnumbered by the agreements.

Racism in casting The Hobbit?

 (I can't tell you how much I've wanted to use the Elrond Facepalm again)

Yeah, this old chestnut's raised its ugly spectre again.

The 18 Best Fantasy Series Of All Time

It recently occurred to me that, if I met a "fantasy fan" on the street, I might not have anything to talk to them about. Wheel of Time, Sword of Shannara, Sword of Truth, the Belgariad, the Black Company, Thomas Covenant, Dragonlance - I know little to nothing of them, and what little I know I've long since forgotten through apathy and disinterest. I've only read the first Song of Ice & Fire and Dark Tower novels respectively, and neither made much of an impression.

So when I see lists like this, I sometimes feel woefully out of touch. Of the eighteen, I would only pick about six that might be deserving of any such list. How can I be a fantasy fan if I don't like 90% of the SF & F shelf at my local Waterstones?

Still, I'm happy enough just being a fan of good fiction. I'd hate to be the sort of guy who would read or not read a book based purely on genre.

Anyway, as these lists go, it's what's to be expected. It's hilarious that the author includes Eddings even though he admits that he has a problem calling him "the best of anything," making me wonder just why he was included in the first place. I also find it depressing that Conan languishes in 16th place, below Harry Freakin' Potter. Most astonishing of all is placing A Song of Ice & Fire above The Lord of the Rings. Really? I mean, really? Even after this paragraph which, while really overstating the case for Tolkien's impact (he popularized them, but he hardly invented the idea of the "party," "dark lord," "quest" and whatnot), he puts ASoI&F above it?

Still, that's lists for ya.

Lego The Lord of the Rings!?!

It could happen, according to Traveler's Tales, the developers of the rather brilliant Lego Star Wars, Lego Indiana Jones and Lego Batman video games. EA has dropped the LotR rights to Warner Brothers... who owns Traveler's Tales.

The Barbarians of Middle-Earth: The Haradrim

 

"But we have our tales too, and news out of the South, you know. In the old days hobbits used to go on their travels now and again. Not that many ever came back, and not that all they said was believed: news from Bree, and not sure as Shiretalk, as the sayings go. But I've heard tales of the big folk down away in the Sunlands. Swertings we call 'em in our tales; and they ride on oliphaunts, 'tis said, when theey fight. They put houses and towers on the oliphauntses backs and all, andd the oliphaunts throw rocks and trees at one another. So when you said "Men out of the South, all in reed and gold," I said "were there any oliphaunts?" For if there was, I was going to take a look, risk or no. But now I don't support I'll ever see an oliphaunt. Maybe there ain't no such a beast."

 - Samwise Gamgee, The Lord of the Rings, Book IV, Chapter III, “The Black Gate is Closed”

 This week, in celebration of Toller’s eleventy-eighth birthday, I’ll look at some of his Men of Darkness, the Haradrim: exploring their appearance, history, culture, historical and Howardian analogues, and their motivations for aligning with Sauron. Far from the faceless, generic “bad guys” a surface analysis would suggest, the Haradrim are very human, and the monster they became in the Third Age was created not just by Sauron, but by the protagonists’ own ancestors. A stark rebuttal of the black-and-white morality some critics level on Tolkien’s peoples, the Haradrim have a long and complicated history.