Tolkien the naturalist - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

William Cloud Hicklin · 01-02-2008, 08:53 PM

And Tolkien's idyllic Shire was a place of green fields and well-tilled earth: in other words a man-made landscape, even if organic. Bucolic rural England is (or was) the product of millenia of human habitation, clearing, ditching, draining, hedging, introducing species (the oh-so-English Peter Rabbit is a descendant of immigrants).

What Tolkien really objected to was industrialization, not anthropogenic change in general.

Nogrod · 01-02-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

And Tolkien's idyllic Shire was a place of green fields and well-tilled earth: in other words a man-made landscape, even if organic. Bucolic rural England is (or was) the product of millenia of human habitation, clearing, ditching, draining, hedging, introducing species (the oh-so-English Peter Rabbit is a descendant of immigrants).

So true!

And what's even more fun is that after the mode of the 18th century Versailles' geometric gardens being the top of the pops there emerged this romantic idea in the GB for a wild or natural "garden" which would look like an original forest... well bettered a little bit to please the human eye of course.

Mithalwen · 01-03-2008, 07:18 AM

Well in less elevated circles naturalist is used here for the likes of David Bellamy and Attenborough (David again not Dickie)... where as a naturist is something quite different again....

William Cloud Hicklin · 01-03-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

where as a naturist is something quite different again....

Well, there is the bit after the Barrow where Frodo & Co go au naturel, and a bit in the Lost Road.......

'Naturalist' in the Attenborough sense is simply the 18th-19 century word for the polymath scientist of nature, before the subdivision into botanist, zoologist, biologist, even geologist and paleontologist. Darwin was a 'naturalist.' As was Dr Doolittle.

The Might · 01-03-2008, 08:44 AM

Well, for one thing he definitely associates this early industrial revolution in M-e with negative things. An inudstrial Shire was terrible, same goes for the works of Saruman.

Definitely such a development was not to his liking.

Quote:

It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and also not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far. ~ TH

I always knew it that Daimler and Benz were goblins!

No, but seriously now, this does seem to be quite a greenie. Then again, M-e isn't our world.

Laurinquë · 08-30-2008, 03:38 AM

I agree with Nogrod's statement, Tolkien was more of a "make things stay the way they were when I was a kid" kind of person verses an environmentalist. It's not really bad thing, it's better than nothing.

And, on line with what William Cloud Hicklin said, Tolkien seems to be much more appreciative of well-tilled earth than wetlands and wilderness. Notice how the wetlands mentioned are made out to be bad places, the Dead Marshes, the Midgewater Marshes, and how wild areas are seen to be dark and dangerous. It's a very natural way to think, but these days that thinking seems a bit back wards.

I'd also like to know why you think so many fantasy books take place in some pre-industrial/medieval era. That has always puzzled me.

wispeight · 08-30-2008, 05:27 PM

I think he has used idea's from religions that are older than the Three we all are so aware of. One hint is the fourteen gods and goddesses.

What has hurt everyone of us to an extent, is the transition from agrarian to industrial based culture. We simply have to make it work for us. We are thinking all the time and I've heard that we even confuse a thought with an emotion. I personally find it difficult to accept that last assertion. Or rather, understand how that can be. We need industrialization now, to support our massive global population. I certainly don't accept the solution of killing people in massive numbers. I'd rather attempt to come up with a solution to an impossible situation. Perhaps that is exactly our tasse du the. Surmounting impossible obstacles.

01-02-2008, 08:53 PM	#1
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	And Tolkien's idyllic Shire was a place of green fields and well-tilled earth: in other words a man-made landscape, even if organic. Bucolic rural England is (or was) the product of millenia of human habitation, clearing, ditching, draining, hedging, introducing species (the oh-so-English Peter Rabbit is a descendant of immigrants). What Tolkien really objected to was industrialization, not anthropogenic change in general. __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

01-03-2008, 07:18 AM	#3
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,461	Well in less elevated circles naturalist is used here for the likes of David Bellamy and Attenborough (David again not Dickie)... where as a naturist is something quite different again.... __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

08-30-2008, 03:38 AM	#6
Laurinquë Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 347	I agree with Nogrod's statement, Tolkien was more of a "make things stay the way they were when I was a kid" kind of person verses an environmentalist. It's not really bad thing, it's better than nothing. And, on line with what William Cloud Hicklin said, Tolkien seems to be much more appreciative of well-tilled earth than wetlands and wilderness. Notice how the wetlands mentioned are made out to be bad places, the Dead Marshes, the Midgewater Marshes, and how wild areas are seen to be dark and dangerous. It's a very natural way to think, but these days that thinking seems a bit back wards. I'd also like to know why you think so many fantasy books take place in some pre-industrial/medieval era. That has always puzzled me.

08-30-2008, 05:27 PM	#7
wispeight Pile O'Bones Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: In the caboose pulled by the unseen. Posts: 23	I think he has used idea's from religions that are older than the Three we all are so aware of. One hint is the fourteen gods and goddesses. What has hurt everyone of us to an extent, is the transition from agrarian to industrial based culture. We simply have to make it work for us. We are thinking all the time and I've heard that we even confuse a thought with an emotion. I personally find it difficult to accept that last assertion. Or rather, understand how that can be. We need industrialization now, to support our massive global population. I certainly don't accept the solution of killing people in massive numbers. I'd rather attempt to come up with a solution to an impossible situation. Perhaps that is exactly our tasse du the. Surmounting impossible obstacles.