"History is written by the winners" taken to extremes
It's pretty typical that I'm not-exactly-intentionally running into "The Last Ringbearer," which was actually published in Russia and is apparently available as a free English translation somewhere on the interwebs, when I'm supposed to be cracking open a textbook. (If anyone's read it, I'd love your opinions, positive or negative.)
Now this is one of numerous "let's look at Tolkien's universe from the dark side" thingies floating around. I have to find such endeavors intriguing, given that I do similarly, if a bit less overtly. And I like the idea that since "history is written by the winners," there are different ways of interpreting the villains of Tolkien.
That being said, I'm not sure what to make of overt transfigurations of the bad guys into the good guys and the good guys into the bad guys. On the one hand, if written well, it's at least an interesting sociological exercise (not written well, it's just kinda awkward). On the other hand, this type of storytelling takes the absolutism it accuses Tolkien of and simply reverses it. I prefer to think anyone, subjected to their own set of circumstantial and historical variables, has potential to be both "good" and "bad."
Behold excerpts from The Last Ringbearer. While I do actually love the dialogue and ideas presented in the exchange between Gandalf and Saruman, I find it impossible to believe they would act in the respective manners they do here. All of a sudden Gandalf is an ass, and I'm just not buying it. I can see the writer hunched at his keyboard, folding up and turning the characters and situations about, and if I can see the author pulling strings behind his text that's not what I'd call a convincing portrayal.
Something interesting I got out of this discovery was actually the apologetics the author provided for his tale, here translated by ymarkov. Anyone who mentions Richard III and geophysics in the same essay can't avoid getting on my good side at least a little bit. Though I will take issue with his notion that Tolkien didn't understand geography.
Lastly, a salon article about the story. The writer quibbles about whether the story is fanfiction or not (I wonder why it wouldn't be).
Now this is one of numerous "let's look at Tolkien's universe from the dark side" thingies floating around. I have to find such endeavors intriguing, given that I do similarly, if a bit less overtly. And I like the idea that since "history is written by the winners," there are different ways of interpreting the villains of Tolkien.
That being said, I'm not sure what to make of overt transfigurations of the bad guys into the good guys and the good guys into the bad guys. On the one hand, if written well, it's at least an interesting sociological exercise (not written well, it's just kinda awkward). On the other hand, this type of storytelling takes the absolutism it accuses Tolkien of and simply reverses it. I prefer to think anyone, subjected to their own set of circumstantial and historical variables, has potential to be both "good" and "bad."
Behold excerpts from The Last Ringbearer. While I do actually love the dialogue and ideas presented in the exchange between Gandalf and Saruman, I find it impossible to believe they would act in the respective manners they do here. All of a sudden Gandalf is an ass, and I'm just not buying it. I can see the writer hunched at his keyboard, folding up and turning the characters and situations about, and if I can see the author pulling strings behind his text that's not what I'd call a convincing portrayal.
Something interesting I got out of this discovery was actually the apologetics the author provided for his tale, here translated by ymarkov. Anyone who mentions Richard III and geophysics in the same essay can't avoid getting on my good side at least a little bit. Though I will take issue with his notion that Tolkien didn't understand geography.
Lastly, a salon article about the story. The writer quibbles about whether the story is fanfiction or not (I wonder why it wouldn't be).