6 ms·

Somewhat related: "The Last Ringbearer": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer - "an alternative a

by wfn 13y ago

Somewhat related: "The Last Ringbearer": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer - "an alternative account of and an informal sequel to the events of J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy, The Lord of the Rings." The novel is based on the premise that the Tolkien account is a "history written by the victors". In Eskov's version of the story, Mordor is described as a peaceful country on the verge of an industrial revolution, that is a threat to the war-mongering and imperialistic faction represented by Gandalf (whose attitude has been described by Saruman as "crafting the Final Solution to the Mordorian problem") and the elves. Author's article on salon.com: http://www.salon.com/2011/02/23/last_ringbearer_explanation/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/23/last_ringbearer_explanation/ The whole book in English here: http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/280578.html http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/280578.html

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Surprisingly familiar. But isn't it another idealogical exaggeration in a different direction? Cute though. Maybe a balanced version, where feuding between an agrarian society and an imperial nation rises to war, with atrocities mounting by the imperium's secret police as the naieve masses of farmers slowly accept the need for fighting back? Oh, that was Tolkien's version.
- wfn 13y ago
  > But isn't it another idealogical exaggeration in a different direction? Yeah, probably! It's just.. an interesting angle, really! I'll quote from the second foreword to LotR[1] (written in 1966) (excerpt somewhere from the middle), because I like it and it's somewhat relevant to all this (tl;dr: just read the second paragraph) As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in the war that began in 1939 or its sequels modified it. The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves. Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. (I've been listening to the LotR audiobook during my walks in the woods etc. recently. Recommend+++.) edit p.s.: it wasn't me who downvoted you. fwiw, while your tone was somewhat condescending, i thought your comment did add to the discussion. [1]: e.g. http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?16713-LOTR-The-second-edition-Foreword-by-Tolkien http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?16713-LOTR-The...
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Cool! Reminds me of 'Wicked', another genre-twisting effort. Its effective to take familiar settings and recast them in an alternate-universe sort of way.
  - twic 13y ago
    I like the idea of fantasy as being "feigned history". It's fortunate that Tolkien's dislike of allegory was cordial, given that he was besties with C. S. Lewis.
  - porker 13y ago
    Which audiobook have you been listening to?
    - wfn 13y ago
      The audiobook for the LotR trilogy: "Lord of the Rings: unabridged audiobook." I couldn't find a decent info page, so here's a direct magnet link (554.8 MB): magnet:?xt=urn:btih:dbf280a187744045f68d64b9fdc2c581fee5b24e&dn=J.R.R.+Tolkien+-+The+Lord+of+the+Rings+Unabridged+Audiobook&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337 In any case, if you search for "Lord of the Rings unabridged audiobook" you'll find results.
gcv 13y ago
Fascinating. Is that Salon article even remotely accessible to a non-Russian (speaker)? It makes fairly subtle references to writers non-Russians have likely never heard of (the brothers Strugatskie, Lev Gumilev, Griboedov), and so builds a large argument which can come across as vapid and pretentious. I'm not necessarily saying it is, but I got most of the references and thought the author went a little too far. The comments are rather less charitable, and point out a few factual errors (e.g.: currency at Bree — silver pennies, explicitly mentioned by JRRT; the weakness of sequels — what about Huck Finn?).
- wfn 13y ago
  > It makes fairly subtle references to writers non-Russians have likely never heard of (the brothers Strugatskie, Lev Gumilev, Griboedov), and so builds a large argument which can come across as vapid and pretentious. fwiw, I don't speak Russian, but I've read 'Roadside Picnic' (and am somewhat familiar with what else they wrote), know of Griboyedov, etc. I'm sure I've missed many references and nuances, but the article did deliver a consistent overall message/point to me. > I got most of the references and thought the author went a little too far. I probably agree, it went a bit over the top, but knowing where he's coming from (i.e.: I understand his defensiveness), it was OK for me. Some of the references to lore/history/etc were.. more 'cute' than argument-building. :)

by wfn 13y ago

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

Surprisingly familiar. But isn't it another idealogical exaggeration in a different direction? Cute though. Maybe a balanced version, where feuding between an agrarian society and an imperial nation rises to war, with atrocities mounting by the imperium's secret police as the naieve masses of farmers slowly accept the need for fighting back? Oh, that was Tolkien's version.

wfn 13y ago
> But isn't it another idealogical exaggeration in a different direction? Yeah, probably! It's just.. an interesting angle, really! I'll quote from the second foreword to LotR[1] (written in 1966) (excerpt somewhere from the middle), because I like it and it's somewhat relevant to all this (tl;dr: just read the second paragraph) As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in the war that began in 1939 or its sequels modified it. The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves. Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. (I've been listening to the LotR audiobook during my walks in the woods etc. recently. Recommend+++.) edit p.s.: it wasn't me who downvoted you. fwiw, while your tone was somewhat condescending, i thought your comment did add to the discussion. [1]: e.g. http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?16713-LOTR-The-second-edition-Foreword-by-Tolkien http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?16713-LOTR-The...
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Cool! Reminds me of 'Wicked', another genre-twisting effort. Its effective to take familiar settings and recast them in an alternate-universe sort of way.
- twic 13y ago
  I like the idea of fantasy as being "feigned history". It's fortunate that Tolkien's dislike of allegory was cordial, given that he was besties with C. S. Lewis.
- porker 13y ago
  Which audiobook have you been listening to?
  - wfn 13y ago
    The audiobook for the LotR trilogy: "Lord of the Rings: unabridged audiobook." I couldn't find a decent info page, so here's a direct magnet link (554.8 MB): magnet:?xt=urn:btih:dbf280a187744045f68d64b9fdc2c581fee5b24e&dn=J.R.R.+Tolkien+-+The+Lord+of+the+Rings+Unabridged+Audiobook&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337 In any case, if you search for "Lord of the Rings unabridged audiobook" you'll find results.

gcv 13y ago

Fascinating. Is that Salon article even remotely accessible to a non-Russian (speaker)? It makes fairly subtle references to writers non-Russians have likely never heard of (the brothers Strugatskie, Lev Gumilev, Griboedov), and so builds a large argument which can come across as vapid and pretentious. I'm not necessarily saying it is, but I got most of the references and thought the author went a little too far. The comments are rather less charitable, and point out a few factual errors (e.g.: currency at Bree — silver pennies, explicitly mentioned by JRRT; the weakness of sequels — what about Huck Finn?).

wfn 13y ago
> It makes fairly subtle references to writers non-Russians have likely never heard of (the brothers Strugatskie, Lev Gumilev, Griboedov), and so builds a large argument which can come across as vapid and pretentious. fwiw, I don't speak Russian, but I've read 'Roadside Picnic' (and am somewhat familiar with what else they wrote), know of Griboyedov, etc. I'm sure I've missed many references and nuances, but the article did deliver a consistent overall message/point to me. > I got most of the references and thought the author went a little too far. I probably agree, it went a bit over the top, but knowing where he's coming from (i.e.: I understand his defensiveness), it was OK for me. Some of the references to lore/history/etc were.. more 'cute' than argument-building. :)