Subverting the Superversive Tolkien

I recently trimmed down the amount of time I spend on Twitter. Maybe I need to go back and trim it down again. I came across a real peach of a tweet. The only redeemingly quality it has is that it perfectly illustrates what I’ve been talking about recently: The difference between Superversive and subversive.

Quick refresher, and for those wandering into the topic for the first time, Superversive builds up while subversive destroys. 

The tweet in question is a two-parter and here they are for your viewing pleasure:

Screenshot (214)

Screenshot (215)

 

First off, we’ll set aside the copyright issues sure to be attached to this. I seem to recall Sony having Lord of the Rings games that came out on PS2 at the time of the Peter Jackson films. I’m doubting either Sony or anyone holding the rights to Tolkien’s works granting permission for this project, with or without the indicated overhaul of the original material. But, for the sake of argument and for this blog post, lets say they get the green light.

First question: Why?

If you want to create a high fantasy game that is in the same vein as Tolkien and checks off all those “woke” boxes you so desperately want to check off, you can easily do so without using any of the characters or places in his classic work. It isn’t that hard to do. I did it. Its called Minya’s Legacy. The game never got produced but I created the entire story and bible for it. I’ve been considering making it into a full-blown novel down the line. 

It’s original, doesn’t rip-off Tolkien, and doesn’t completely change Tolkien’s richly-developed characters. It shows respect for Tolkien’s work, respect for the millions who have read and deeply enjoy what he created by creating a Tolkien-like story without crapping on his original work.

3f2Showing proper respect for original work matters, especially if you are going to dare wander into an established world and try to craft something new within it. I write Sherlock Holmes pastiches. Four have been published, a fifth will be coming out later this year. I’m currently writting a weekly series of Star Trek fan fiction that touches on Star Trek: Enterprise, The Original Series and The Next Generation. In both instances I am being extremely careful to remain true to the canon and established characters. This is Superversively building up, lifting an established universe to even greater heights.

Sadly, it looks like this project intends to take a huge crap on Tolkien’s works, just like we’ve seen done recently with J.J. Abrams’ led reboot of Star Trek and the disasterous Star Wars sequel triliogy. Established canon was trashed, main characters were dramatically altered (Spock and Uhura as lovers? Seriously, J.J.? How Dare YouLuke Skywalker a bitter old man who tried to murder his nephew and gave up on the universe? Seriously, Rian?) and even the underlying themes of both were changed to fit a more “woke” mindset not shared by a majority of long-time fans of each franchise.

Or, in other words, Star Trek, Star Wars and now the recently targeted Lord of the Rings, has been subversively torn down and twisted into an unrecognizable heap of useless garbage. These are just the more recent examples. There are many more and many more are sure to be targeted soon.

The good news is that there are plenty of old books, movies and shows to rely on so that these franchises can still be thoroughly enjoyed. And there are pockets of resistence to the subversive menace, pockets willing to produce stories true to the originals that can be enjoyed by all. 

maxresdefaultThis is the Superversive way. It will always succeed and those who follow it will enjoy unmeasurable happiness in their work.

But I do have two questions for the subversive mob.

If you want to make a LOTR/Star Trek/Star Wars that fits your limited worldview, why do you refuse to go out and create something similar to these franchises using new characters that fit your vision? Why must you invade an established franchise and twist it into something that it never was instead?

Fortunately, I have the answer to both questions.

You lack the talent, the creativity and the drive to do so. That is why you are subversive and that is why ultimately you will always fail and be miserable your entire life.

Yoda_Fail

 

7 comments

  1. They do this because they can and because they want to remake not only the present and the future, but the past in their own image. No respect for the original material or the creator.

  2. I would like to see something like a new version of Star Trek with another ship than the Enterprise, one which is crewed mostly by people from some other part of Earth. Let’s say the African continent. There would perhaps be conflicts between individuals from groups which have had a long term rivalry – let’s say there is a superior officer from the Xhosa people, and another, of lower rank, with Zulu ancestry – others who have cultural norms which clash, maybe some from some colony world where some culture originally from some part of Africa has developed into something very different and the colonist now has to deal with others from the original culture. Also, we’d see where they have things in common. Then add a few aliens, and maybe one or few Americans (maybe at least one black, who’d be perhaps a bit shocked to find out that her origins and culture mean more than her skin color when it comes to fitting in with that crew) among the POV characters because that is the perspective most of us, including everybody everywhere who has watched Star Trek in any of its previous incarnations, is most familiar with.

    That might be quite interesting, and an actually fresh take on the franchise. Considering the recent African immigrants to the USA it should be possible to find enough consultants and even actors to get a more genuine take on that version too.

    But no, when they put in POCs they are just American ones, and the whole thing is from a (now more or less woke) American perspective.

    1. I agree with your point about recent Star Trek efforts (post 2009) being worthless woke-fests.

      But I am going to take issue with your first point. The whole point of Roddenberry’s Star Trek was that Earth was no longer divided up by country. Thus you had a Russian (Checkov), an Asian (Sulu), a couple of Americans (Kirk & McCoy), a Scotsman (Scotty), an alien (Spock) and representing Africa – Uhura. That was pretty dang diverse without shoving it down the viewer’s throat.

      I’m not sure if Starfleet would permanently segregate a crew like that – although they did so for the Intrepid (all Vulcans) – and I will briefly have an all-Etalyian crew in my weekly serial series with the understanding that eventually non-Etalyians would rotate aboard. Could your idea work long-term or even on a permanent basis?

      I don’t know. But it just wouldn’t feel like Star Trek to me.

Leave a Reply