Middle Earth - Unstuck in Time?

[Ealasaide]

Someone please direct me to the right place if this issue has already been addressed on another thread or even another forum, but I have been thinking lately that Middle Earth seems to be a place that is culturally unstuck in time.

Prior to becoming heavily involved in RPG's on the Barrow Downs, this issue had not occurred to me, but the more writing I do in the RPG's, the more I find myself tripped up by petty details such as clothing and social nuances.

Culturally, it seems to me that Middle Earth reflects several different time periods at once, depending on the Race and Geographical Location of a given character. For instance, hobbits seem very Victorian, while Rohan seems to ride out to us from about the 6th century. Gondor seems more 12th century. The Elves, on the other hand, seem to come from the Time of Legends, to borrow a term from Terry Gilliam and the Time Bandits, though their clothing seems to be more along medieval lines.

The political structure of the countryside seems more like the sixth century at the beginning of LotR, being divided into separate and sometimes warring citystates, while it takes on more of a medieval feel at the end of RotK, when Aragorn ascends the throne.

So... in terms of RPG-ing, from whence does one draw one's source material other than from Tolkein's works alone? Not being as well-read at Tolkein's works as I perhaps should be, I find myself wondering how to detail my RPG posts. For an RPG that takes place at roughly the same time as the War of the Ring, do I describe a sailing ship that would be contemporary to the 6th, 12th, or 19th century? Do such things as jousting and dueling (with swords - I do realize that there is no gunpowder) exist in Middle Earth? In clothing, I find myself constantly wondering if my character should be wearing a shirt and waistcoat or a tunic. What style dresses do the ladies wear?

So far, I have found that it really has not made that much difference to anyone what I do in terms of details , but being a bit of a purist, I find the situation disorienting at times and was wondering if anyone else had any opinions on the matter.

[mark12_30]

The discussion I remember was from a movie-oriented person... PJ? Philippa Boyens? Not sure. Anyway they thought that the Hobbits were basically Edwardian, and then time moved "backwards" as you progressed East and south. Bree was 1900s; Rivendell was Renaissance or so; Lorien & Mirkwood bordered on Medieval? Rohan was essentially Anglo-Saxon (so I'm thinking 1000-ish) and Gondor was, well, I guess about the same only a different culture(Italian maybe? Who knows.) Dwarves I'm not sure.

I don't know if there is wide agreement on that, but it made fairly good sense to me.

On the other hand, I traversed Middle-Earth before I learned European histories and customs, so in a way, Middle-Earth makes more sense to me than Europe does.

For RPGs I guess I rely on gut instinct; how helpful can I be!

[Bêthberry]

I think you raise a good point, Ealasaide. There are several points to consider about how to depict Middle-earth, especially when Tolkien created different cultures and societies with different styles.

I know that when, years ago it seems now, I first set up the RPG resource thread, it was not with the intention of creating rigid categories of historical accuracy. Rather I hoped to provide quick sources people could use to develop vocabularies for various aspects of Middle-earth--aspects which would tend not to be found in our regular vocabularies today. Simple things really--vocabulary for parts of a horse, for archery and swords, for various kinds of occupations, styles of clothing, etc. One of the intriguing things about Tolkien is his control over diction and so I thought that might be reflected in how we care to write our games.

It seems to me there are two basic trends in gaming or Tolkien fanfiction. The pinacle of one kind is represented by Mithadan's superb short stories: an absolute allegiance to the style, tone, tenor and ethos of Tolkien's writing. It is a kind of fidelity and discipline, to challenge oneself to find the language which completely fits Middle-earth without any slippage into modern day terminology or attitudes. Sort of like 'writing Middle-earth from the inside.'

The other kind is looser, maybe more geared towards putting Middle-earth in other contexts: an approach which wants to say, "how would Tolkien have described this if he had included it?" That is what I strove for with my character Darash in Fordim's game Land of Darkness, a Black Amazon from ancient mythologies. I tried to imagine how that kind of person would fit into Middle-earth.

It seems to me too that we have come a long way in our approach to gaming here at the Barrow Downs. As I recall, our initial efforts were devoted towards asking people to respect the special qualities of Middle-earth and at least to be aware of how one went about imagining characters and events in a Tolkien game. At one time, we had many people who were more interested in hack and wack sword play and not so much in the particular attitude Tolkien had towards warfare. Or we had a plethora of unimaginative green-eyed maidens who were all orphans. I think our changes were designed to inspire gamers to strive for originality of characterisation and some degree of consistency with a Middle-earth tone: really a kind of creative writing with the kind of calibre which the discussion threads had. I think we are currently thinking about this same idea now regarding the Mirth forum: how to use language creatively, intelligently, wittily.

That is I think what is essential in any of the games here on the Downs: writing well.

I bet this is a real big help, isn't it?

[Ealasaide]

Thanks for the feedback Mark and Bethberry!

While neither of you were able to answer my question directly - I'm not sure there really is an answer - you were both quite helpful.

What an interesting notion that physical travel through Middle Earth runs a parallel to travel backward through time! I don't know that I necessarily agree with the timeline as plotted out - I still think Rohan reflects an older social structure than Gondor - but it is a fascinating idea. (For some strange reason, it makes me think of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, the physical journey down the river there being reflective of a spiritual journey into the darker recesses of the heart.) I do agree, though, that hobbits are more Edwardian than Victorian. My mistake!

As for the two trends in gaming, etc, it is interesting to know the history of gaming on the Downs. I think where I was getting hung up was that I tend naturally toward the latter school of thought, i.e. "how would Tolkien have described this if he had included it?" but was thinking that maybe I should be trying harder to meet the requirements of the former. It's good to know that that is really not the focus here and that good writing in general is. Also, BethberryI'm very familiar with your RPG resource thread, having made use of it on a number of occasions. It does a wonderful job of providing vocabulary and insight into a wide variety of topics that are not exactly in the realm of common knowledge these days. Great stuff!

I am beginning to believe that there may be a fundamental error in my approach here in that I have been rather stubbornly attempting to apply a Western European timeline to a place that exists separately from history, within its own frame of reference. Being a blockheaded realist who is much more apt to be found toting around a volume of Tolstoy or the biography of Gertrude Bell in my briefcase than a fantasy or sci-fi novel, I think I may be trying a little too hard to apply historical standards where they really don't belong.

In the fabric of Middle Earth, it seems that various time periods can exist concurrently in terms of clothing styles and social structure. What ties it all together is that they all share the same level of technology... no one city-state being more advanced technologically than another... but... the question that remains is - What level is that? From what century does Middle Earth cull it's most advanced technology? 6th? 12th? 19th?

Which begs another question... has technology remained stagnant in Middle Earth throughout the ages or has it advanced at all with time? Are the ships, weapons, etc, all the just the same in the third age as they were in the first?

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had an umbrella, and Bilbo had a clock on the mantelpeice. The most advanced thing in Minas Tirith seem to be the siege-engines, whatever they were.

Generally speaking, Tolkien favored art over technology. He doesn't describe Feanor's palantiri as technology; they are art. I think it's not really a question of advancing technology.

In Middle-Earth, I think it's a question of technology-growth being a sign of the decay of the arts. The highest civilizations were the artistic ones (Noldor, and all that high art in Valinor.)

Each race had its art. You might argue that the "art" I refer to is actually a craft, but I would argue that a craft taken to perfection is an art anyway.

For the hobbits, it was actually working the earth. They were superb farmers and gardeners, and they even lived in the earth. When they lost that touch with the soil, and Sharkey built his mills and ugly sheds and started smoking the place out, that was the Shire's greatest catastrophe.

The art of the elves varied, but I think you could examine where the "falls from grace" took place. Feanor & co, is obvioius. Celebrimbor's ringmaking in alliance with a Maia-of-ill-repute comes to mind.

Dwarves are artists in metal and stone.

In terms of men--

The rangers' art is to disappear in the woods and come out again exactly where they mean to. Not much technology there, but lots of "woodcraft".

It strikes me that the art of Bree is that men and hobbits dwell together peaceably sharing real-estate and ale.

When I think of Rohan, I think their horses are their art. Equestrians will understand.

Gondor-- what art have they left? Numenor was once glorious, but their fall was so long ago. They are the most decayed race of all, I think (" How the mighty have fallen. ") They are too busy fighting; not their fault; but Faramir-- a noble example of an "Old Numenorian"-- still loves the arts, and loves the sword not for its brightness but for what it defends. In contrast, Denethor -- an example, I think, of a fallen "Old Numenorean"-- perceives power as the essence of life, and he despairs when it is taken from him. One gets the sense that Faramir could care less about power.

In answer to your question "So how do I write RPG technology"-- my gut instinct is, remember that technology is generally negative and avoid it as best you can. Middle-Earth is about art and character. Whenever technology is mentioned (aside from a hobbits' clock or umbrella) it's a bad thing. Saruman and Sauron are the engineers. The good guys are the artists.

ps. On a tightly related note:

Aiwendil has written an absolutely ***brilliant***, must-read essay regarding the height and decline of music in Middle-Earth.

Aiwendil's essay: Music in Middle-Earth

[Ealasaide]

bolcotook - Perhaps technology was the wrong term to use to communicate the point I intended to make. I hesitated over using it for the very reasons you cite, i.e. that technology as such is portrayed as evil in Middle Earth while art and pastoral work such as farming is portrayed as good. It is interesting that you classify farming as art, but I suppose it can be seen as such when practiced with the sort of dedication brought to it by the hobbits. The same for woodcraft, horses, etc. Good point!

The question I was really trying to ask, though, was when writing in Middle Earth, what line of detail does one go with? Broadswords, obviously, not rapiers. No firearms or cannon. 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.

Obviously, there does seem to be a difference in technology between the various city-states, now that you bring up Lobelia's umbrella and the clock on the mantle at Bag End. I can not seem to recall any mention of such objects in Minas Tirith.

That brings us back to Mark's notion of time travel parallelling physical travel.
Hmmm...

**************************

EDIT: thanks for the link, Bolcotook. I will be sure to check it out!

[HerenIstarion]

On the other hand, I traversed Middle-Earth before I learned European histories and customs, so in a way, Middle-Earth makes more sense to me than Europe does.

So much for seeing through the glass

[Ealasaide]

I loves philosophical messes and deep, deep thoughts!

I just wanted to pop in and say that I've been insanely busy over today and yesterday and am looking forward to answering all of this wonderful input tomorrow when I will actually have the chance to read it all again carefully and think and organize my muddled thoughts!

For the moment, though, all I can say is:

~*WOW!*~

[tar-ancalime]

H-I,

Thanks for posting that Arthur C. Clarke quotation--that's exactly what I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember who said it.

[Ealasaide]

Child, You said:

what I thought you were saying was that there might be an "ideal" representation of a particular object --- say, for example, a Corsair ship-- and that you would personally feel more comfortable if you would somehow ferret out a sense of what that was and apply it in your own writing. However, given the statement you made about wanting to gather impressions and there being no one right way of depicting a Corsair ship, I may be slightly askew there!

No, you aren't askew! If anyone is, I am. To be perfectly honest, I'm not quite sure what I'm up to here, so if I sound like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth at once, I probably am. So... here goes...

Yes, I was interested in finding out if there was one "ideal" notion of, for instance, a corsair ship, kind of like the Platonic Essence of Corsair Shipness, not so much out of a need for definition, but to assuage my own curiosity. While I might apply that knowledge to my own writing at some point - particularly if I am floundering - I don't think that I would necessarily rely upon it as an absolute. My creative mind is an obstinate and independent little beastie and is usually not apt to follow convention anyway except where it is fairly clearly expected or absolutely required. I think I was mostly trying to find out if my writing was in the right ballpark and not too far out in the tall grass because I tend to wing it pretty regularly. I do like to make things up! Not being the Tolkein encyclopaedia that so many folks are around the Downs, and being something of a perfectionist at the same time, I think I was trying to ascertain if my thoughts and impressions on visual details were at least close to what people who know what they are talking about see in their minds. Now that I know every one else is pretty much winging it as well on that sort of thing, I see that I can relax a bit on that point.

It seems as if JRRT was always willing to revisit his previous writings, pulling and tweaking things as ideas evolved in his head. This, as much as anything, is the reason why the Silm could never be set down in final form.

There are writers who are developing artists and those who have but a single masterwork in them, who once that work has been delivered, have nothing more to say. I always saw Tolkein as one of the developing artists. The Hobbit was written very much in the style of the traditional fairy tale and bears a strong resemblance to other stories in the same basic genre, like McDonald's "The Princess and Curdie" or the original book version of Baum's "The Wizard of Oz." Instead of staying within that format, Tolkein advanced into the form of the epic saga with LotR, leaving the conventions of the fairy tale behind, but carrying the core of his ideas with him. He continued to evolve stylistically as he continued to develop his ideas into broader and more complex forms. I always thought that the Silm never reached a final version because it was still evolving and fleshing itself out the more and more Tolkein thought about it and refined his mode of presentation, i.e. moving from the fairy tale to the saga to the mythic. I always thought of it as less contrariness as determined perfectionism, the willingness to keep changing and tweaking and revising until the sound and feel and voice struck exactly the right tenor to match the ideal that already existed somewhere within his mind.

As for myself and my own writing, I find that I tend to tailor my writing a bit more toward what other writers are doing and what I believe the reader is looking for when I write in an RPG setting - hence my interest in other people's impressions! When I write alone, however, I tend to be much more quirky and, well, personal, bringing a lot more of my own life experience into play. In both settings, though, I try to maintain a rather cubistic view of the world in that every situation changes depending on your point of view. Each character will see the world from a slightly different perspective depending on his or her own wants, needs, interests, and personal experience. Every character I write tends to be flawed to some degree, is frequently wrong about things, and makes sometimes egregious mistakes due to temper, ego, or simply the wrong impression of a situation. But because it is a team operation in an RPG, I tend to reign in my characters a good deal more than when I am in total control, mostly because I am relatively new to RPG'ing and don't want to tread on any toes or mess up anything that other people might already have planned that I am not aware of. The Perfect Hero or Heroine, the sort who is always right and always does the right thing by some sense of inate goodness is dull as dirt to me - not that that has anything to do with anything. I just thought I would share that thought!

Tolkien cited rare instances where technical items were acquired unexpectedly by someone of a different race. For example, objects of Elvish art were gifted to both Humans and Hobbits---the Stones to the Edain and later to Elessar or the seeds to Sam-- or the Dwarvish mithril shirt and the Elvish Sting with its ability to warn of nearby Orcs. But these gifts were regarded as very rare, and came about only because the people in question had great need. If everything had been peaceful, most of this sharing of technology would not have occurred.

Excellent point! That's very true. I had never thought of it that way before, but it is very true that there was very little overlap of technology or culture between the various groups. They each maintained a completely independent and sovereign identity even though they were sometimes in very close proximity to one another. Any kind of crossover was very rare and, you are right, what did take place was of great significance and based on great need. It is also true, as you say, that mostly ill came of so many of the crossovers. Would that be, do you think, because Tolkein regarded the exportation of cultural items as a bad idea or more due to situational reasons such as the recipients of the gifts were unfamiliar with the history and individual qualities of the gifts and, as such, were ill-equipped to handle them? And then I can't help but think about Tolkein's on-going theme in LotR of intent, e.g. what was in the mind of the giver or the recipient at the time the crossover was made.
************************************

Tar-ancalime - You said:

when Tolkien describes them at the end of the Third Age he has to use his words wisely to convey the impression of (for lack of a better image right now) majesty grown over with ivy. In other words, the lack of "ordinary" objects in Minas Tirith can be read as a literary device: we don't hear about Denethor's umbrella because the Gondorians, as the remnant of Numenor about to ascend to dominance once again, are too noble to be troubled with such mundane items.

That is an excellent point as well. While I tend to fall more into line with Child over the idea of a fundamental lack of crossover between the different cultural groups, you make a very significant observation in terms of the literary device. "Majesty grown over with ivy" is a very good way to describe it. While I don't tend to believe that there were umbrellas in Gondor as such, I do think that Tolkein was consciously trying to convey that image and, in doing so, would need to avoid anything that might border on the comical or absurd, such as Denethor toting around an umbrella.

Hobbits, in Third-Age terms, are a relatively young civilization with very little attachment to the past. Gondor, on the other hand, is drenched in its past glory both in Middle-Earth and as Numenor. The Elves are even more backward-looking. Perhaps this is why the hobbits are "allowed" such things as waistcoats and handkerchiefs: having arisen relatively recently, their society most closely resembles modern times. However, this in no way detracts from my theory that "technology/art" tends to decline over time in Middle-Earth: as Child of the 7th Age pointed out, the hobbits find Gandalf's fireworks, Galadriel's rope, and the toys from Dale to be "magical," which implies that there is nothing in their "technology" that can explain these things. Also there is no indication that the other societies look on the hobbits' achievements with anything like wonder or even interest, while the hobbits themselves spend much of the story gaping in astonishment at the wide world. To extricate myself from this rhetorical knot, I'll say briefly: the hobbits' level of "technology" is the most like our own and yet the least advanced of those around it.

I love this explanation! Nothing like this had ever occurred to me before, but it makes a good deal of sense to me. You've clarified it beautifully. Thanks!

Regarding technology as magic, I bow to you, to HerenIstarien, and to Arthur C. Clarke. Makes sense to me!
**************************************

Davem - Thanks for the wonderful treatise on "the machine" and "machine-thinking," as well as its tie-in with intent and motivation. It wasn't a mess at all! Actually I'm suddenly feeling very enlightened...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Ealasaide

Yes, I was interested in finding out if there was one "ideal" notion of, for instance, a corsair ship, kind of like the Platonic Essence of Corsair Shipness, not so much out of a need for definition, but to assuage my own curiosity.

I think this would depend on whether there was a Corsair 'culture' as such - did they create their own cultural artifacts, or simply steal, & cannibalise those of other cultures? I could see their ships having a basic 'Numenorean' feel to them, but adapted for their particular approach - mostly inshore raiding, etc, but I can't see their ships having a 'uniform' look in any detailed sense - any more than their dress/weapons. If there was an 'ideal' corsair ship it would be a purely practical design, any extraneous decoration removed or lost & not replaced, & as well protected as possible. It also seems to me that ancient ship design was based to some degree in the culture's beliefs/worldview - ie dragon prows on viking ships - so that brings in the questiion of corsair 'beliefs' - would they have specific designs which they would add on, or were they purely motivated by a materialistic approach - power & money. Perhaps getting an idea of their culture, if any, would help in imagining their ships. Having said that, I'm not sure there would be a standard shape or design.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

...even I would never include Denethor with an umbrella in an RPG unless I was writing in Entish bow.

Child, you can expect me to take you up on that challenge soon!

"Well, well!" said a voice. "Just look! Denethor the Steward with an umbrella, my dear! Isn't it delicious!"

"Most astonishing wonderful!"