Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Nature is both 'active' in the form of aiding or thwarting individuals & 'passive' in the sense of providing 'signs', but it is always present, always a participant.
From this point of view Middle earth is also a character in the story, not simply a 'backdrop'. I can't help thinking that this may be linked to the statement in The Sil that Eru sent the Secret Fire to dwell in the heart of the earth. It seems that Middle earth is 'alive' in a real sense - though admittedly not always on the side of 'Good'.
|
I think one of the most common feelings expressed by readers is how 'alive' the landscape of Middle-earth is to them. I don't know whether the environmental message which was commonly gained from the story is as widely held today as it used to be, but I certainly still get that message strongly. One of the ways it comes through in the story is how holistic this world is - actions are shown to have reactions, such as what results of Saruman's activity, and as such the model of Middle-earth is very close to our own world where a small change can have large consequences.
Whichever way we read, if we see this message or do not, then it can't be denied that the landscape itself plays an enormous role in our appreciation of Tolkien's work. There are several writers who do make incredible use of landscape, almost to the point of characterising it, including Thomas Hardy and Emily Bronte; while they use landscape as a setting for stories and to echo characters (see how the landscape changes with the changing fortunes of Tess Durbeyfield), Tolkien made the change in the landscape part of the story in itself.
This is why I like the idea that the Secret Fire lives at the heart of the earth. It is as though this is the force around which life in this secondary world revolves, it drives it, and it also creates consequences. In our world it seems to be the skies which drive nature, whereas in Tokien it is the Earth itself.