I finished reading it yesterday. As pointed out, it basically dismisses LOTR as a tissue of propaganda, misinformation, and Elven coverups (eg. the pirate fleet was actually a hired merchant fleet, whom the Elves bribed & threatened into silence, at which point rumors went into operation).
I’m not hugely fond of taking that kind of out—it bothers me that Eliezer takes as many liberties with the Harry Potter canon as he does, I really like the single-point-of-divergence style and regard multiple points as inefficient/inelegant.
But the story makes up for it as it morphs into a John le Carré spy novel culminating in an excellent double or triple cross.
Would I call it rationalist? Not especially, not more than your usual spy novel with its tradecraft and trickery.
No, it’s not especially rationalist, even as the heroes’ people wear that label. It’s pretty much a spy thriller. Doesn’t give the reader a fair chance to see the characters’ clever rational moves ahead of time, so not “rationalist” advocacy except maybe very broadly.
I must say, I’m enjoying it a lot more than LOTR. Loved the movies, was nagged to read the books by loved one, made it all the way through (except the appendices), have no intention of ever doing so again.
Adam Cadre has an entertaining account on watching the LotR movies as someone who has neither read the books nor picked up the content via cultural osmosis.
The movies were horrid distortions of the ethical center of the books. I hate how many people now think that the movies are even close to representing the books. In several ways the movies reverse the books: the focus on battles, the unscoured Shire, Eowyn’s pursuit of glory in the battlefield, the mercy on Gollum being treated as stupidity—the moviemakers utterly failed at representing almost every single moral point.
I finished reading it yesterday. As pointed out, it basically dismisses LOTR as a tissue of propaganda, misinformation, and Elven coverups (eg. the pirate fleet was actually a hired merchant fleet, whom the Elves bribed & threatened into silence, at which point rumors went into operation).
I’m not hugely fond of taking that kind of out—it bothers me that Eliezer takes as many liberties with the Harry Potter canon as he does, I really like the single-point-of-divergence style and regard multiple points as inefficient/inelegant.
But the story makes up for it as it morphs into a John le Carré spy novel culminating in an excellent double or triple cross.
Would I call it rationalist? Not especially, not more than your usual spy novel with its tradecraft and trickery.
No, it’s not especially rationalist, even as the heroes’ people wear that label. It’s pretty much a spy thriller. Doesn’t give the reader a fair chance to see the characters’ clever rational moves ahead of time, so not “rationalist” advocacy except maybe very broadly.
I must say, I’m enjoying it a lot more than LOTR. Loved the movies, was nagged to read the books by loved one, made it all the way through (except the appendices), have no intention of ever doing so again.
Adam Cadre has an entertaining account on watching the LotR movies as someone who has neither read the books nor picked up the content via cultural osmosis.
And here was my response to his comments.
The movies were horrid distortions of the ethical center of the books. I hate how many people now think that the movies are even close to representing the books. In several ways the movies reverse the books: the focus on battles, the unscoured Shire, Eowyn’s pursuit of glory in the battlefield, the mercy on Gollum being treated as stupidity—the moviemakers utterly failed at representing almost every single moral point.
Heh. The films made a lot more sense to me in the extended DVD editions—as in, the plots are vaguely comprehensible with four hours each to use.