Russian Kirill Yeskov has written a type of spin-off of Tolkien’s epic, retelling the drama from Mordor’s prespective. It has been translated into English by Yisroel Markov and is released on the public. Laura Miller writes:
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, he obviously serves as an avatar for Russia’s 20th-century foes. 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.
For the record, I hate this.
I’m going to read this before I evaluate it. But I’d like to point out that it makes sense it was written by a Russian. They have spent decades serving the dark lord Stalin.
Pure gold, Ori. Pure gold.
Reading the Salon article to my wife, she observed that the core of the new book is a denial of the good and evil at the center of Tolkien’s Trilogy. That’s the core of postmodern thought – The philosophy built upon the idea that there is no universal right or wrong. That appears to be the central core of this book, not so much to continue the story, but to deny the virtue of those portrayed as virtuous by Tolkien.
Greybeard, that may be it. Or it may be about how with propaganda you can make right appear wrong and vice versa.
I plan to start the book and then evaluate it.
Can I add that the core of the new book is a reading of Lord of the Rings as pro-English and pro-war that Tolkien hated?
In the introduction to the official American edition, he calmly pointed out that if he were writing an allegory of contemporary politics than the Allies would have their own Ring, and “Hobbits would not survive even as slaves.”
I would accept a LotR revision that tried to fulfill that rather odd suggested story. I’m not a huge fan of Gardner’s Grendel, but I understand its merit. A genocidal Gandalf could be equally–or more–interesting and thought-provoking, though he could never replace the wonder of the real Gandalf.
But the moment the article mentioned an educated, progressive, and virtuous Mordor, I figured I can safely cross this book off any potential reading list. Tolkien, as anti-allegorical as he was, could see that his allies weren’t the paragons of good he tried to create in his romances. (The point, as I take it, is that we should strive to be like Aragorn, not that we should hail Churchill as his overweight modern avatar.) Yeskov, it sounds like, can’t–and this is a fatal flaw in an author who wants to be taken seriously as a political allegorist.
Hopefully the gentle reader will realize, that at the time of WW2, the Soviet Union was one of the allies?
Dr. Yeskov’s explanation of his motive and method is available at Salon or on my Livejournal.
Thanks, Yisroel.
The author’s article was interesting reading–much to agree with (I will as completely defend his right to rewrite Tolkien’s world), a bit to bicker with. It also looks like I misread his point; he isn’t responding primarily to Tolkien’s moral economy, but Tolkien’s world. The moral objections are there, but aren’t where the craftsmanship lies.
I should know better than to believe publicity. Still not sure that I’ll read it, though.