[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Let me pose some other ways of looking at this problem.

Argument #1 : when Tolkien created Middle-earth, he did not say it was a faerie world existing in some other reality, as so many books of fantasy do. Instead, he said it was the actual history of our own world. And it wasn't the history of the "dark ages", ca. 500-1100 (I strongly dislike that term, but it was used by another poster), but our own pre-history--that period of time beyond which our own written history exists.

If you think of it in Tolkien's perspective, rather than the terms of modern fantasy books, the residents of Middle-earth, and specifically the Elves, have done exactly what Tolkien did. They've taken their own past history and woven them into marvelous, miraculous tales. They've created something I would call "lore", which has one foot in history (atleast in Tolken's terms) and one foot in faerie.

For them to introduce a totally different fantasy world into Middle-earth that had no roots in that world would be a deviation from the model that Tolkien himself proposed. It just wouldn't feel right. It would go against the themes and ways of thinking the author says is important in this particular subcreation.

Argument #2: If we accept Middle-earth on the terms that Tolkien gave us, as part of our own past history, then we must look to our earliest recorded history and literature to understand why JRRT did what he did. Folk in ancient times had a much different attitude than we do. The general assumption was that the golden age was in the past, not in the future.

This same attitude is part of Tolkien's mythology. It can be seen in the depiction of Middle-earth before Melkor's worst attacks. The whole idea of Elvish "embalming" also hints at such a perspective. The Elves do not want their world to change, because change is generally viewed as a negative. As Tolkien so eloquently put it, history is a series of tiny and fleeting moments of victory, followed by long and inevitable defeats. The only exception to this is the final battle and what lies beyond, but that age is in such a distant future, and its exact nature so sketchy, that his characters give little thought to it. Given this perspective, it's not surprising that any imaginative subcreation would be set in the past--which is regarded as closer to the lost golden age--rather than in the future or some alternate reality.

There's also something else coming into play here. Ancient man lived closer to the mythic mode than we do. He could look about him and see wonder in every grain and fiber of the earth. Why create another world, when there is so much wonder in this one? It's only us moderns, who are so divorced from that sense of wonder, who must push our imaginative subcreations out into another reality, rather than seeing and feeling the wonder of this reality.

Argument #3: This one may get me in trouble! Hey, what the blazes are we doing here? It seems to me this is a little piece of hubris on our part. Yes, our own fantasy literature or depiction of different worlds tend to be presented as alternate reality or future developments. But who says you can't have this same employment of imagination when dealing with the past. This is what works like the Illiad and Odyssey represent.

OK, let me turn this equation on its head. First, Tolkien clearly sees subcreation in much wider terms than we've used in this thread. In Letter 131, he says that Elvish "magic", more properly described as Art, is one of the richest veins of Elvish subcreation. Now, I defy you to find any instances in the modern world of people practicing or even accurately depicting in literature this same type of magical subcreation. (I would consider most portrayal of magic in fantasy worlds to be far afield from what Tolkien is referring to when he speaks of Elvish Art.)

So, just because we don't practice this particular form of subcreation, does it negate the other forms of subcreation which we do have? The answer is no. I don't think it's fair for modern man to point to his own particular accomplishments (the depiction of alternate reality worlds, for example and set those up as a standard. As an historian, it really gripes me when people do this when assesing the contributions of past ages. And since Tolkien says his own world is history, we have to accept him at his word and look at Middle-earth from that perspective.

sharon

P.S. I crossposted with Annunfuniel, since it took me a while to hack this out on the keyboard. She has also made reference to my first argument--the fact that Tolkien was dealing with our own history. I do think this is critical to understanding this question.

P.P.S. I also cross posted with Davem! I am reposting this ahead of him so it doesn't get "lost".

[ April 11, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]