Middle Earth - Unstuck in Time?

[Ealasaide]

When in doubt, leave it as vague as possible.

Ah, Imladris, you are obviously not the glutton for detail that I am! If I am talking about a ship, I want to make the reader see the ship with as much detail as possible. I want to come as close to putting my reader on the ship beside my character as I possibly can. If my character is a sailor, for example, I would like for him to be able to talk about his vessel with at least the appearance of being knowledgeable about his vessel. I would like for him to be able to talk about the decks and the sails and usage of the sails, not be stuck saying merely, "hmmm, the wind is up. Let's sail!" No insult intended, but isn't ignoring specifics of detail the lazy way out?

As for Tolkein's not concentrating on details like this, I do believe he had other things on his mind, seeing as he was creating a new mythology... but we have the mythology in place already, many thanks to him, and can afford to place a little more emphasis on detail. So far, I have just been winging along based on whatever seemed appropriate in a given storyline, which has worked pretty well as far as it goes. I am not looking for a definitive listing of what is and is not available to the folks in Middle Earth, but rather a general consensus of what people's impressions are based on their own reading and interpretation of Tolkein's work. Tolkein could be quite descriptive, though, where such description was approriate. To say that he ignored specifics in "true mythic style" is to sell both Prof. Tolkein and "mythic style" a short bill of goods. Go back to the source material of, say, the Iliad or the Odyssey. Homer could go on forever with rather mind-numbing detail at times.

tar-anclime - good point regarding point of view! I had not considered the source there, myself, but you are right as to what you said in your edit. I think a hobbit such as Merry would be first to note anything that made him think of home, the most ordinary things being the most notable because they would bring with them a sense of normality and comfort to stressful situation. So, are there really umbrellas in Edoras? I tend to think not for precisely the reason that Merry neglected to mention them.

Imladris - could the fact that hobbits tend to hide from big folks really be interpretted as an advance in technology? It seems to me - and it's just my off-the-cuff opinion - that that would indicate a change in social interaction, rather than any technological change. Why do the hobbits make themselves scarce? I believe Tolkein said it was because they were shy by nature and that big people were noisy and blundered about with very little care for their surroundings. This does bring to mind a less pastoral mind-set on the part of the big people, but I fail to see the connection between this and technology. I'd be very interested in seeing how you arrived at this conclusion!


tar-ancalime - you also made a good point about the decline of technology in that no more Silmarils or Palantiri were made, no ships so strong as those made by the Numenoreans, etc, etc, but doesn't that also coincide with a decline in magic? It seems to me that LotR takes place at a time when magic is slowly giving way to the ordinary, the mundane, the world of men, as opposed to the world of elves and elven magic.

(I know the term "magic" is problematic in speaking of Middle Earth, but I use it loosely here for lack of a better term.)

the decline of technology in that no more Silmarils or Palantiri were made, no ships so strong as those made by the Numenoreans, etc, etc, but doesn't that also coincide with a decline in magic?

I suspect Galadriel, and the rope-making elf in the Farewell To Lorien chapter, would call that a decline in art.

"Are these magic cloaks?"

"I do not know what you mean by that... Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

. This does bring to mind a less pastoral mind-set on the part of the big people, but I fail to see the connection between this and technology.

Perhaps the connection is that as men increase their comfort in and dependance on technology, and remove themselves further and further from the soil and the earth, hobbits grow still less and less interested in men-- regarding them with ever-increasing suspicion.

[Ealasaide]

"Are these magic cloaks?"

"I do not know what you mean by that... Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

With this example, we fall back into tar-ancalime's issue of point of view. For the elves, who are inherently magical persons, this would not be magic, but would be art, quite ordinary for them. But for hobbits and men, who are not capable of crafting such things, it would fall into the area of magic. The cloaks are not magical in that they are not given their power by any charm or spell, but they are magical in that they can accomplish by their mere existence that which is beyond human craftsmanship, hence magical. Under these standards, magic is in the eye of the beholder. To a dog, a television is pretty darn magical, but to the TV repairman, it is just ordinary stuff.

With the decline of the presence of elves in Middle Earth, we see a decline in magic... or art, if you prefer to think of it that way. That being said, however, art and technology can co-exist, but can technology and magic? It seems to me that by it's mere nature, technology eliminates the possibility of magic. The advent of the Age of Men in Middle Earth would seem to bring with it a renaissance of technology and an end to magic. That's where I get the impression of sadness in Tolkein's work, a yearning for the magical in a place where magic is rapidly disappearing.

[Imladris]

Originally Posted by Ealasaide

Ah, Imladris, you are obviously not the glutton for detail that I am! If I am talking about a ship, I want to make the reader see the ship with as much detail as possible. I want to come as close to putting my reader on the ship beside my character as I possibly can. If my character is a sailor, for example, I would like for him to be able to talk about his vessel with at least the appearance of being knowledgeable about his vessel. I would like for him to be able to talk about the decks and the sails and usage of the sails, not be stuck saying merely, "hmmm, the wind is up. Let's sail!" No insult intended, but isn't ignoring specifics of detail the lazy way out?

Being vague might be the lazy man's out, but considering that Tolkien himself was vague on such things as style, we don't really have much of a choice, do we? However, I never said, "Don't describe the ship." You said something about whether the ship was like a Viking ship, etc. However, ships have pretty much the same parts in general: decks, aft, starboard, etc. You can use these. Just because you don't say how the ship overall looks like doesn't mean we are being lazy. I never said that we shouldn't describe at all. I said we should focus on other things other than the over all looks, ie, whether a ship looks like a viking ship or a pirate ship or whatnot because we don't know. What we do know are a few of the details (listed above) that we can use to make it seem real.

To explain, let me quote your ship example:

But does one visualize a Viking-style longship when taking to the sea? Or a three-masted ship with a quarterdeck, multiple sails and complex rigging, only sans cannon, of course.

We have a ship.
We don't know how the ship looks like since Tolkien didn't describe the culture of the race using the ship. Thus we are vague on the way this ship looks like.
However, we know that all ships have a certain kind of sails, decks, aft, etc. We use these to make it real.

Lazy? Hardly.

I would also like to say that Tolkien never described how a ship in general looked like (as if it was like a Viking sort of ship). In the part of the Sil where King Ar-Phazon was going to attack Valinor he didn't tell us how the ships in general looked like. He described their banners, how their masts looked like a forested island, etc. In other words, he was vague on how they looked like. Same thing with the Corsair ships. The only thing we knew about them was that they had black sails and they were still real.

What I am saying is that we should focus on the details of the ship (sails, decks, etc) and not on the over all ship (Viking ship, etc). Is that still lazy, or did you misunderstand me? As Bb said, saying what you thought I was saying would be bad writing.

I would also like to point out that we cannot use Vikings, Edwardian, etc styles because they were after ME's time.

could the fact that hobbits tend to hide from big folks really be interpretted as an advance in technology? It seems to me - and it's just my off-the-cuff opinion - that that would indicate a change in social interaction, rather than any technological change. Why do the hobbits make themselves scarce? I believe Tolkein said it was because they were shy by nature and that big people were noisy and blundered about with very little care for their surroundings. This does bring to mind a less pastoral mind-set on the part of the big people, but I fail to see the connection between this and technology. I'd be very interested in seeing how you arrived at this conclusion!

ME is a myth of our own world (thus, ME and our world are the same, much as the Grecian gods lived in Greece). We are big folks. Our world has advanced technologically. Thus, the ages of Middle Earth also advanced Technologically.

And, since I was too dumb to speak of it earlier, there were technological advances. The Silmarils, the dwarven craftsmanship, all equal advancement (in this case, artistic). If there was artistic advancement, then there was technilogical advances. Saruman advanced technologically, as did Melkor. Unfortunately they were evil advancements...

[Ealasaide]

Imladris - sorry if you thought I was implying you were dumb or a bad writer - neither was my intent. I was merely saying that details are important. One should apply pertinent details in order enrich one's writing and enhance the experience of the reader. I interpreted your statement:

When in doubt, leave it as vague as possible.

as a word of advice to me that I would be better off not worrying with details as they are not important. Sorry, I still have to say it sounds a touch lazy to me!

As for your example of Tolkein's descriptions of the corsairs, not much else was needed, was it? But then, he was not writing an extended adventure on board a ship. He was writing about the reactions of people on land to the sight of the ships. I am talking about times when one needs specific details. As for Bb, I'm am certain she understands the importance of detail, hence why would she have created her wonderful RPG Resource Thread, eh?

In an RPG, as I ran into in "Here There Be Dragons" when my character needed to describe his ship, I could not very well have him say, "Oh, well, let's see. It had a deck and a sail. Ummm... Oh, yeah, a rudder, too!" You see where I am going with this? My purpose in starting this thread was to discover if there was a common frame of reference out there according to people's visions after reading the books. I may picture a three-masted sailing vessel, while other people may picture a viking longship with a single sail. In the vast scheme of things, I'm sure it doesn't make that much difference to the world which is which, but it does make a difference when one is attempting to become a stronger performer in a given arena.

I would also like to point out that we cannot use Vikings, Edwardian, etc styles because they were after ME's time.

As for this comment, I do have to say that you seem to be taking my remarks a touch too literally. I would never describe something in an RPG by those standards as they do not exist within the context of Middle Earth. To say that Middle Earth came at a time prior to that is erroneous because we are talking about two separate and totally disconnected worlds. While they bear a resemblance to one another, we can cannot in all seriousness say that ME came before this world. If we did that - going back to technology - we would be implying that mantle clocks and umbrellas existed prior to vikings.

Because Prof. Tolkein belonged to this world, i.e. 20th Century Europe, he did draw on these time periods, viking, Edwardian, etc, for reference. Therefore, we are perfectly entitled to use these terms when describing his work, characters, or scenes in a context of criticism and discussion, which I believe this is.

[Imladris]

To say that Middle Earth came at a time prior to that is erroneous because we are talking about two separate and totally disconnected worlds.

Tolkien wrote LotR as a mythology for England (letter 130). Also Letter 156:

But they were still living on the borders of myth -- or rather this tory exhibits 'myth' passing into History or the Dominion of Men

Myth

And, I never said not to be descriptive. I write like I explained in detail in my former post (I suppose this makes me lazy, I don't know). I said to draw on the information that Tolkien based his races on.

I, however, do not feel it right to tamper with Tolkien's myth if he has left such things vague and if there is no cultural basis to turn to. If that is lazy then I am lazy.

[Bêthberry]

If I may interject here, my two excellent Writers of the Mark, I think there are things to be said for both your approaches. Why? Because, as writers, while we strive to capture the feel of Middle-earth, we also must listen to our own imaginative voices. There is a time and place to learn about character, about plot, about description, about interaction, and there is also a time and place to recognise the role of the creative imagination.

I don't really see any reason why there has to be one definitive form of, say, Middle-earth ship, or wagon, or sword, or armament. What is important is consistency within each game, but I don't think we have to say that all games need to use the same terms of rerference for styles.

What are those words which help flesh out the vision of the particular game you are playing in? Maybe in one game you will want to describe the Viking longboats with their particular shape of sail and oarsmen and prow. Maybe in another you might be inspired by visions of Chinese junks. I can't see U boats in a Tolkien game--well, I'm sure someone might, for the sake of argument, try to see if a 'modern' game of sea warfare could be written with the ethos of Tolkien's heroic ideal--but I think the really important point is not to say definitively that there is one particular style for each race, but that a legitimate case can be made, game by game, for a particular vision. Maybe someone has built a boat by hand and would want to contribute that knowledge to a totally unique sense of ship. A case could be made.

To me, the defining issue is "does this inspire in me a sense of the values which Middle-earth represents?" If no, why not and how can that be accomodated? If yes, then, what is it that creates such a sense? Sometimes it might be the writer's skill at evoking in the reader's mind an idea; sometimes it might be the writer's skill at taking one aspect of Tolkien and extrapolating it; sometimes it might be the writer's skill at catching the very flavour and tone of Tolkien's world.

As an example, let me refer to a quote on another thread. davem offered a passage from a soldier in WWI describing his batman, in demonstration of the historical accuracy of Tolkien's depiction of Sam's fielty towards Frodo. Yet Fordim questioned that quotation as being too patronising. Both 'readings' are, I think, equally valid, but I would not expect to see them in the same game. In separate games each might have its place.

Must away--I will return to provide a link to that thread.