The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Modern World references in Middle-Earth

Bill Ferny · 11-03-2002, 11:00 AM

Well, I’m scratching my head over this thread. How can there be anachronisms in a fantasy world? Hey, I like to get lost in Middle Earth, myself, but its not a history of an epoch. Its all made up. If Tolkien wanted to have the game of golf, velvet, football (soccer for us American chaps), spectacles, glass windows, coffee or potatoes then great. There’s no reason to believe from the canon that any of these things are different than they are, and there’s no reason for further explanation. After all, it can’t be an anachronism if the place or time never existed.

Its like a friend of mine once asking: “How did the dwarves of Moria feed the furnaces for their forges if they weren’t downing massive amounts of trees to supply them with charcoal?” Does it matter? When do you require realism, and just plain old unquestioning acceptance in order to maintain the integrity of the story. I really can’t picture a Gwaith-i-Mírdain elf in Eregion tending a charcoal clamp. Though realistically in order to have forges and furnaces you need charcoal, and therefore they would have to make it. Do I need that kind of realism to believe that the Gwaith-i-Mírdain were great craftsmen?

The real question is not anachronism, but realism versus verisimilitude. Tolkien was not trying to write a realistically accurate account from the view point of a historian or archeologist, but was writing from the stand point of a storyteller engaged in the art of getting the reader’s attention. He didn’t need to be historically accurate, because the story was never intended to be a lesson in history. Thus, he was free to relate to the reader’s everyday experience by the use of verisimilitude.

The lack of stirrups would have made mounted combat impossible for the Riders of the Mark (at least this would have been the general impression by military historians at the time Tolkien was writing, though we know better today), and mounted combat was something for which they were famous. The addition of the stirrup, therefore, in Tolkien’s mind, was necessary for verisimilitude. A glass window is more recognizable as a window than a piece of stretched vellum over an opening in the wall. A waist coat on a hobbit paints a recognizable portrait for the modern reader. Sam standing up with his hands behind his back like a school boy, immediately gives the reader a certain impression, but there doesn’t necessarily have to be hobbit schools. The lopping off of a goblin’s head, and it’s landing in a hole, is the perfect opportunity to make a witty comment about a sport with which the reader may be interested.

Archeologists and historians know things like what kind of lichen people in Mercia during the sixth century used to wipe their butts. I mean, really, am I the only one here that’s happy Tolkien was a storyteller and not an archeologist or historian?

11-03-2002, 11:00 AM	#30
Bill Ferny Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bree Posts: 390	Well, I’m scratching my head over this thread. How can there be anachronisms in a fantasy world? Hey, I like to get lost in Middle Earth, myself, but its not a history of an epoch. Its all made up. If Tolkien wanted to have the game of golf, velvet, football (soccer for us American chaps), spectacles, glass windows, coffee or potatoes then great. There’s no reason to believe from the canon that any of these things are different than they are, and there’s no reason for further explanation. After all, it can’t be an anachronism if the place or time never existed. Its like a friend of mine once asking: “How did the dwarves of Moria feed the furnaces for their forges if they weren’t downing massive amounts of trees to supply them with charcoal?” Does it matter? When do you require realism, and just plain old unquestioning acceptance in order to maintain the integrity of the story. I really can’t picture a Gwaith-i-Mírdain elf in Eregion tending a charcoal clamp. Though realistically in order to have forges and furnaces you need charcoal, and therefore they would have to make it. Do I need that kind of realism to believe that the Gwaith-i-Mírdain were great craftsmen? The real question is not anachronism, but realism versus verisimilitude. Tolkien was not trying to write a realistically accurate account from the view point of a historian or archeologist, but was writing from the stand point of a storyteller engaged in the art of getting the reader’s attention. He didn’t need to be historically accurate, because the story was never intended to be a lesson in history. Thus, he was free to relate to the reader’s everyday experience by the use of verisimilitude. The lack of stirrups would have made mounted combat impossible for the Riders of the Mark (at least this would have been the general impression by military historians at the time Tolkien was writing, though we know better today), and mounted combat was something for which they were famous. The addition of the stirrup, therefore, in Tolkien’s mind, was necessary for verisimilitude. A glass window is more recognizable as a window than a piece of stretched vellum over an opening in the wall. A waist coat on a hobbit paints a recognizable portrait for the modern reader. Sam standing up with his hands behind his back like a school boy, immediately gives the reader a certain impression, but there doesn’t necessarily have to be hobbit schools. The lopping off of a goblin’s head, and it’s landing in a hole, is the perfect opportunity to make a witty comment about a sport with which the reader may be interested. Archeologists and historians know things like what kind of lichen people in Mercia during the sixth century used to wipe their butts. I mean, really, am I the only one here that’s happy Tolkien was a storyteller and not an archeologist or historian? __________________ I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit.