#which so far as I'm aware is the alleged revision

[fallloverfic]

There are two versions of ORV: the original serialized version and the revised version, and the revision is what the manhwa is based on (it's the same for singNsong's other completed novel, The World After The Fall, which was revised after publication, and it's the revision that's being used for the manhwa adaptation of TWATF). One of the ORV arcs that was most heavily edited for the revision was the Peace Land arc. But the manhwa also adds/removes things as it goes because that's kind of the nature of adaptation.

The popular English fan translation of the novel is the unrevised version. As far as I'm aware, no one has fully translated the revised version into English. It's one thing people are wondering about with Yen Press' upcoming English translation: are they translating the revision or the unrevised version? It would make more sense that they'll do the revision because that's what singNsong have apparently said is their ideal version of ORV, and it's what's used for the ebook version of ORV.

Hi! I hope it's okay to ask, but I really want to read ORV and I'm.. a bit confused about something? How or where exactly do I read it, and which version of ORV is the one people usually recommend? Is there even a difference? I'd appreciate any and all help!

no worries! redirecting you here

as far as i know there are two versions? one is translated (the one i am directing you to) and the other is an edited version which may not be translated? and may or may not be the base for the webtoon? with some scenes added and removed? take whatever i say with a grain of salt though, i got handed the file in a dark alley by an ill meaning friend. she was out for my blood apparently.

[chaos-of-the-abyss]

re: narrative favorism -- ok so while i can't speak for anyone who reblogged, my original post was in reference to the first option only, because the idea that beren and luthien's actions were in any capacity equal to the feanorians' is preposterous. the worst, the very very worst, that they did to the feanorians is refuse to return something that belonged to them by property rights. (although this claim is unconvincing too, for the sake of exploring beren and luthien's alleged wrongs, i'll speak under the hypothetical assumption that it has validity.) beren and luthien never kidnapped any of the feanorians, they never tried to force any of the feanorians to marry into their family for political gain, they never tried to kill any of the feanorians after the feanorians choose to spare their lives when they have beren and luthien at their mercy. the supposed wrongdoings on both sides to each other aren't even remotely comparable. even if people do believe that thingol/luthien/beren/dior wronged the feanorians, it's preposterous and frankly a little concerning to claim that the attitude "she got her hands on something that was stolen from me and didn't return it so now we're even after i tried to force her to marry me :)" is justified. and yet!

the most morally questionable thing beren and luthien have done with regards to the silmaril has nothing to do with the feanorians. it's their involvement with the battle of sarn athrad to slaughter the dwarves of nogrod. luthien didn't fight in it, obviously, but one can assume that she was in agreement with beren's actions. (tangent here, but funnily enough, i've mostly seen this brought up secondarily to their supposed crime of keeping the silmaril from the feanorians -- you'd think if one wanted to do a genuine, holistic exploration of beren and luthien's morality, their primary topic would be the premeditated violence that they had some degree of involvement in.) this is far from saintly, but still not equal to anything the feanorians have done. the dwarves of nogrod killed thingol, then later mablung and other unnamed iathrim in the process of looting menegroth and making off with its treasure. meanwhile, the feanorians attack and kill people who have never done a single thing to them so they can steal and use their property, then proceed to burn said property after they're done with it; they kidnap someone they've never interacted with with the intention of, at generous best, forcibly marrying her into the family, and at worst, raping her; after that person escapes they try to kidnap her again, and when that doesn't work, they try to kill her; they ambush and mass murder a kingdom and displace the survivors (among which was a literal three year old child who is now an orphan thanks to them, and neither is there any indication that elwing was the only child whose family was slaughtered); and years later they attack a group of refugees (among whom is the same three year old child that they previously displaced and orphaned, who had to grow up without her family because they/their servants killed her family) and commit another bloodbath. and these are what people genuinely argue are equally condemnable actions?

re: character assassination -- i'm aware of the changes made to celegorm from the draft, but that goes back to the point of the post. tolkien changed the draft to the canon version for a reason. every character's role, and every revision tolkien made, is a vehicle for the themes that he wanted the narrative to convey. prototype celegorm is not canon celegorm, and tolkien replaced prototype celegorm with canon celegorm because he judged that the storyline it created better expressed those themes. and i'd be fine if the two were kept separate and the only complaint was "i wish this hadn't been changed, i like prototype celegorm more" -- but what i see is people using prototype celegorm to defend canon celegorm, using prototype celegorm to rag on beren and luthien's story as it's presented in canon, and/or claiming to like canon celegorm while simultaneously declaring that his actions in beren and luthien aren't real and what is real is prototype celegorm. which is a funny stance to take. celegorm's actions in beren and luthien aren't just some throwaway moments that are overall meaningless, they're a pivotal part of his arc, the point at which he falls so low that the character that serves as his close companion and for him a physical embodiment of one of his most recognizable aspects (his affinity for nature and his friendship with orome, a vala), turns against him. and as if that weren't significant enough, said character dies fighting side by side with beren, a man that celegorm hates. if there's a chapter in the silmarillion where celegorm most takes center stage, it's chapter 19, and if there's a story in the verse where he has the most focus, it's the lay of leithian. in other words, a large part of his canon character is shaped by his actions in beren and luthien, and if you can't accept them and you want to substitute them with prototype celegorm's actions instead, then you don't like celegorm -- you like prototype celegorm. i don't understand why people act otherwise. it's like insisting that you really love apples and they're your favorite food while presenting the large number of candy apples you eat per day as evidence of that. in the same way, i fully get why people love celegorm -- i love celegorm -- but using prototype celegorm interchangeably with him when it's convenient is not going to convince me that you do.

re: the rape attempt -- while celegorm certainly had predatory intentions toward luthien and was attracted to her, it's explicitly stated in the silm that wanting to marry her had political motivations too. thingol is, if not the de-facto king of all the sindar, at the very least immensely respected by all of them. he displays a great deal of influence and soft power throughout beleriand, and it genuinely would be extraordinarily beneficial to celegorm and curufin if they were able to ally with him. their idea was to eventually unite all elves under themselves, take on morgoth, and reclaim the silmarils that way.

re: interpretation -- i have mixed opinions. i'm in full agreement that tolkien would have encouraged various interpretations of the legendarium. i have interpretations of the silm's events too -- you kind of have to, given its style. but i also generally have trouble taking the "it's just my interpretation" point seriously, because in so many cases it's just a flimsy veneer for shoehorning in another story altogether while trying to make said story look even remotely believable and based in canon. as you said, of course, the idea that dragons are not evil in tolkien / that the feanorians were justified falls within that category. i can say "i think fingon and maedhros' relationship was never the same after the helcaraxe and while they still care for each other, fingon going to the lengths he did to save maedhros was primarily out of familial and moral obligation," and i can say "i don't think it was celegorm and curufin's initial intention for finrod to die, they just wanted to stop him from helping beren and take control of nargothrond." i cannot say "fingon wasn't really the one who saved maedhros, that was just propaganda to give the houses of feanor and fingolfin a sense of unity, however frail, again," nor can i say "celegorm and curufin actually supported finrod's decisions but they were rewritten in history as being villains who pushed him to his doom." i mean, i can, but that's not me being a fan of the silmarillion, it's me being a fan of the silmarillion: edition where i change what is stated to happen so that the story caters to my tastes and conforms to what i consider most satisfying and engaging. and i wish i could say i was exaggerating, but i have seen takes that go to those kinds of extremes. the crux is, for an "interpretation" argument to be believable, there has to be a certain degree of adherence to the material given, otherwise there's no point in the author taking the time to create and lay out that material in the first place. and going as far as "this is the real version and what was told in canon is wrong" is, to me, an unreasonable and unproductive approach to consuming media. the story that was written... didn't actually go as it was written? then why in the world did the irl author bother to write it as they did at all? this is not just in the silm fandom, either -- i can count at least five fandoms i'm in or have been in with people making a similar claim, and no matter how many times i see it, it's still perplexing. and in all of those instances that attitude is rooted in a sense of "i'm not happy with how the story went because it did abc to this character, i want it to go a different way because this character should get xyz instead." which again goes back to the original point of the post, i suppose. the author did not give that character xyz, they gave them abc, and they did it for a reason. why are you bothering to engage with the story if you fundamentally disagree with what it's putting down

people whining about how beren and luthien have favoritism from the narrative will never not be funny to me like yes. this is a fictional plot created by someone, the author. that author will have a story they want to tell and a message they want to convey. to tell that story, to convey that message, that author will have created protagonists whom the plot centers on, and whom other characters are meant to parallel, foil, complement, and contrast. the purpose of the story and of the other characters is to illustrate and serve the protagonists' journey, so of course the protagonists will have narrative favoritism. that narrative quite literally exists for their sake and for their development. if you don't like the fact that the protagonists are the ones with whom the narrative sides then just don't engage with the fucking story