The Great Tolkien Legendarium Thread

[xxx]

This is the obligatory reminder that when it came out, LotR was lampooned for its Romantic style. Tolkien deliberately imitated older styles of story telling, and to readers of the mid twentieth century, still riding high on Modernist writings about beatniks doing drugs in Algeria, LotR must have felt like a disco album dropped in the middle of the grunge movement.

I'm not sure the same people were reading both.

I am sure of the opposite, LOTR was a required reading for the 60s counterculture...
not for the oldtime style of Tolkien but for its critique of materialism, its environmentalism, its anti-war stance... and halflings pipeweed herb...
and think about the feminist Éowyn overcome the limits of patriarchal society...

[rotting bones]

The Tom Bombadil poem reminds me of the Kalevala more than the LotR.

[rotting bones]

Tolkien just has ill-defined bad guys in the south and nothing at all in the east.

Er... Dark elves to the east. Dark men gathering in the east.

[rotting bones]

I'd say the "non-human races" of the legendarium are probably a take on the traditional British class system as seen by an old-school conservative who approved of it: the Elves are an idealized version of the aristocracy, the hobbits are middle class, the dwarves (most of the time) are "good", "loyal" working class people, and the orcs are "bad", "rebellious" working class people.

I think you're right overall. The Hobbits are basically the "little folk" in England. However, I've heard the orcs are the Japanese. The orcs look different in the books than in the movies. IIRC Tolkien himself once commented that the dwarves are like the Jews. I think in his mind, the High Elves were akin to generic Hellenized peoples.

I think Tolkien's attitude was one of noble condescension towards the little folk and the weak in general. This is very different from the modern far right who, like Nietzsche, don't understand the point of weak people continuing to exist except as fully subordinated slaves of the mighty. Given that Mordor represents modern factories and the efficient life, today's far right leadership would be Sauron in this framework.

[Raphael]

IIRC Tolkien himself once commented that the dwarves are like the Jews.

The problem I see with that interpretation, even though it's been sort of endorsed by Tolkien himself, is that stereotypically, dwarves, both in Tolkien and elsewhere, are generally portrayed as being very "physical" and not at all "intellectual", which is the exact opposite of many stereotypes about Jews, both friendly and hostile.

See also Nathan Goldwag's interesting claim that supposedly, Tolkien's dwarves aren't Jews, but Pratchett's are: https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... es-jewish/

I think Tolkien's attitude was one of noble condescension towards the little folk and the weak in general. This is very different from the modern far right who, like Nietzsche, don't understand the point of weak people continuing to exist except as fully subordinated slaves of the mighty. Given that Mordor represents modern factories and the efficient life, today's far right leadership would be Sauron in this framework.

Very true, AFAICT.

(My spellcheck doesn't recognize "Mordor" or "Sauron". Aren't software spellchecks supposed to be written by nerds?)

[rotting bones]

The problem I see with that interpretation, even though it's been sort of endorsed by Tolkien himself, is that stereotypically, dwarves, both in Tolkien and elsewhere, are generally portrayed as being very "physical" and not at all "intellectual", which is the exact opposite of many stereotypes about Jews, both friendly and hostile.

See also Nathan Goldwag's interesting claim that supposedly, Tolkien's dwarves aren't Jews, but Pratchett's are: https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... es-jewish/

I will read it after I've had some sleep. For now, I'll point out that in the books, most dwarves are dorks who... love gold.

[Ares Land]

I don't think there are really any such correspondances. I don't know if the Orcs are supposed to be any specific nationality/group; they're one representation of evil (another being Saruman, you get my drift)

The hobbits are your relatable, annoying yet plucky protagonists. To some extent, they're based on Tolkien himself, so very English of course. Though personally, I find that the Shire is a rather familiar place.
I'm sure you could find quite a few parallels between the Hobbits and Astérix's village.

I think Tolkien's attitude was one of noble condescension towards the little folk and the weak in general.

Not condescension, I think. It's the little folk and the weak that end up saving the day.

I think in his mind, the High Elves were akin to generic Hellenized peoples.

I think this leaves out the supernatural element, and possibly the Christian element. There's definitely the idea that elves are a different class of being entirely (something the movies don't always convey well). It's uncertain whether elves are fallen or not, in the Christian sense (they don't seem free of sin, though)

[Ares Land]

The problem I see with that interpretation, even though it's been sort of endorsed by Tolkien himself, is that stereotypically, dwarves, both in Tolkien and elsewhere, are generally portrayed as being very "physical" and not at all "intellectual", which is the exact opposite of many stereotypes about Jews, both friendly and hostile.

See also Nathan Goldwag's interesting claim that supposedly, Tolkien's dwarves aren't Jews, but Pratchett's are: https://nathangoldwag.wordpress.com/202 ... es-jewish/

I think the interpretation confuses inspiration with overt analogy. Dwarves are, in some part, inspired by Jews in addition to Dwarves in Germanic mythology, and some of Tolkien outright's invention.
I don't think Tolkien's work was meant to be some elaborate roman à clef.

The claim is possibly more solid in Pratchett's case (who was a lot more open to open analogy); though Pratchett's dwarves are many other things -- a parody of standard fantasy dwarves, and a stand-in for minorities and immigration in general.

[Raphael]

I'm sure you could find quite a few parallels between the Hobbits and Astérix's village.

Hey, I never thought of that! Why didn't I think of that? Though, I've got the impression that Astérix's people are a bit rougher, a bit more hard-edged, a bit less genteel than the hobbits. It might be because I'm more familiar with the movies than with the books, but I find it hard to imagine the hobbits having regular epic brawls.

[rotting bones]

Not condescension, I think. It's the little folk and the weak that end up saving the day.

Under my interpretation, the weak have to stand up for themselves because the great ones are leaving this world. The age is becoming more ordinary with each passing day. For Tolkien, this is not entirely a bad thing. The great ones were stuck up assholes. But their passing away is tinged with melancholy because we will not witness the wonders they could have wrought in our lifetime.

I think this leaves out the supernatural element, and possibly the Christian element. There's definitely the idea that elves are a different class of being entirely (something the movies don't always convey well). It's uncertain whether elves are fallen or not, in the Christian sense (they don't seem free of sin, though)

When people write fiction, they tend to holistically import experiences they are familiar with. This is why it's possible to do trope analysis with a large variety of characters who might otherwise be thoroughly dissimilar. These characters embody the tropes without being fully reducible to them. The orcs aren't literally the Japanese. Tolkien saw something about the Japanese that stuck with him. When he later wrote about the orcs, that aspect of the Japanese seemed relevant to the story.

I don't think Tolkien would say the Japanese are inherently orc-like. Even the orcs themselves are corrupted elves. That's why they have power.

[Ares Land]

Under my interpretation, the weak have to stand up for themselves because the great ones are leaving this world. The age is becoming more ordinary with each passing day. For Tolkien, this is not entirely a bad thing. The great ones were stuck up assholes. But their passing away is tinged with melancholy because we will not witness the wonders they could have wrought in our lifetime.
(...)
When people write fiction, they tend to holistically import experiences they are familiar with. This is why it's possible to do trope analysis with a large variety of characters who might otherwise be thoroughly dissimilar. These characters embody the tropes without being fully reducible to them.

Yes, I entirely agree with that.

Hey, I never thought of that! Why didn't I think of that? Though, I've got the impression that Astérix's people are a bit rougher, a bit more hard-edged, a bit less genteel than the hobbits. It might be because I'm more familiar with the movies than with the books, but I find it hard to imagine the hobbits having regular epic brawls.

Quite a few brawls in the books, too! Then again, Gauls are supposed to be rowdy, Caesar said so.
I think the respective authors were channeling much of the same tropes.
But I also think the Shire / Astérix's village are just what ordinary folks are like, on some fundamental level. (On a good day, granted.)

[WeepingElf]

I think what attracted the hippies to Lord of the Rings were the critique of industrialism, the idylls of the Shire, Rivendell and Lothlórien and the wisdom of Gandalf and the Elves. It was not a roman à clé or allegory; for instance, Sauron isn't Hitler, the only resemblance being that both were evil tyrants who attempted to conquer the world and were eventually defeated by heterogenous coalitions of peoples resisting them (though in very different ways: Hitler was brought down by the industrial and military prowess of the United States, Sauron by the destruction of what J. K. Rowling would have called a horcrux in a covert operation). Tolkien clearly said that Hitler was a "little ignorant" who entirely lacked the grandeur of Sauron who after all was a powerful fallen angel. Certainly, Tolkien wrote it under the impression of the world wars - his own combat experience in the First and his fear about the freedom of his country and the fate of his sons in the Second. But the races of Middle-earth do not correspond to specific nations of the 20th century world, even if the Shire is inspired by the rural England he so fondly remembered from his childhood.

[zompist]

Tolkien just has ill-defined bad guys in the south and nothing at all in the east.

Er... Dark elves to the east. Dark men gathering in the east.

There is no east: Mordor touches the east side of the map. The Men who supported Sauron came from Harad or Rhûn, its neighbors to the south and north.

The map seems pretty clearly to represent Europe and the Middle East: the Shire as England (plus France?), Gondor as Rome/Greece. Mordor is an invention but appears where the traditional enemies of Greece and Rome did. There is no India or China at all.

I recall little of the Silmarillion, but IIRC all the elves we meet in LOTR are Moriquendi ('dark elves') except Galadriel. No elves followed Sauron in the Third Age.

[Glass Half Baked]

I mean... Easterling exist. Humans around Rhun apparently sided with Sauron at some point. I have no idea if Easterlings are described in a way that would line up with any ethnic or racial category, though.

EDIT: Oh. You mentioned Rhun. Why does "The East" not count as east?

[zompist]

I mean... Easterling exist. Humans around Rhun apparently sided with Sauron at some point. I have no idea if Easterlings are described in a way that would line up with any ethnic or racial category, though.

EDIT: Oh. You mentioned Rhun. Why does "The East" not count as east?

I just explained that. The map corresponds to Europe plus the Middle East. In fact Tolkien's map includes a handy scale, by which we can estimate that from the Shire to Mt. Doom is about 1500 miles. That's about the distance from London to Greece. Again, India and China don't exist in his world.

This, BTW, is part of why I advise conworlders to make a world map, even if they're not planning to detail the whole world. You should have an idea of what your main map leaves out.

[Axas mlö]

That said, I don't think we can excuse Tolkien for having so few female characters, or for being so cavalier about the swarthy=dubious trope.

Yes, and amplifying your point, the non-White people portrayed negatively are not just the "swarthy" people: the hobbits "were disturbed to see half a dozen large ill-favoured Men lounging against the inn-wall; they were squint-eyed and sallow-faced." Return of the King, p. 307 of the edition I have here.

...Lobelia Sackville-Baggins...

Lobelia! She's my favorite.

IIRC all the elves we meet in LOTR are Moriquendi ('dark elves') except Galadriel

Glorfindel was also born in the Years of the Trees like Galadriel. But I am nitpicking, not actually disagreeing. "Dark elves" is not a relevant category for LotR.

[Darren]

That said, I don't think we can excuse Tolkien for having so few female characters, or for being so cavalier about the swarthy=dubious trope.

Yes, and amplifying your point, the non-White people portrayed negatively are not just the "swarthy" people: the hobbits "were disturbed to see half a dozen large ill-favoured Men lounging against the inn-wall; they were squint-eyed and sallow-faced." Return of the King, p. 307 of the edition I have here.

Doesn't "sallow" here just mean "sickly pale"?

[WeepingElf]

I mean... Easterling exist. Humans around Rhun apparently sided with Sauron at some point. I have no idea if Easterlings are described in a way that would line up with any ethnic or racial category, though.

EDIT: Oh. You mentioned Rhun. Why does "The East" not count as east?

I just explained that. The map corresponds to Europe plus the Middle East. In fact Tolkien's map includes a handy scale, by which we can estimate that from the Shire to Mt. Doom is about 1500 miles. That's about the distance from London to Greece. Again, India and China don't exist in his world.

This, BTW, is part of why I advise conworlders to make a world map, even if they're not planning to detail the whole world. You should have an idea of what your main map leaves out.

Don't mistake the edge of the map for the end of the world! There is a sketch of a world map in one of the History of Middle-earth volumes (I think in vol. 4, The Shaping of Middle-earth) that shows the entirety of Middle-earth, including a deep south resembling Africa. It is just that those far away regions do not figure in the novel, and we just don't know what is there.

[zompist]

Don't mistake the edge of the map for the end of the world! There is a sketch of a world map in one of the History of Middle-earth volumes (I think in vol. 4, The Shaping of Middle-earth) that shows the entirety of Middle-earth, including a deep south resembling Africa. It is just that those far away regions do not figure in the novel, and we just don't know what is there.

I'm not saying that Tolkien conceived of the world ending there, but as you say, no details are given. Narratively, they don't exist.

For LOTR itself this doesn't matter-- you can have epic events that don't involve the whole world. For the legendarium as a whole I think it's a theological gap, at least: did Eru and the elves-- or Sauron for that matter-- just not care about those areas? The material outside LOTR is more of a history of the world than just of the LOTR area. (I'm afraid Christian theology has the same gap.)

As a creator myself, I'm also very conscious that Tolkien never published anything besides the Hobbit, LOTR, and some poetry, probably because he wasn't satisfied with it. Even the Silmarillion is posthumous. I understand fans' excitement at seeing it all, but I expect he'd have mixed feelings about it.

[WeepingElf]

Don't mistake the edge of the map for the end of the world! There is a sketch of a world map in one of the History of Middle-earth volumes (I think in vol. 4, The Shaping of Middle-earth) that shows the entirety of Middle-earth, including a deep south resembling Africa. It is just that those far away regions do not figure in the novel, and we just don't know what is there.

I'm not saying that Tolkien conceived of the world ending there, but as you say, no details are given. Narratively, they don't exist.

For LOTR itself this doesn't matter-- you can have epic events that don't involve the whole world. For the legendarium as a whole I think it's a theological gap, at least: did Eru and the elves-- or Sauron for that matter-- just not care about those areas? The material outside LOTR is more of a history of the world than just of the LOTR area. (I'm afraid Christian theology has the same gap.)

Yep. The areas beyond the LotR map's edge do not matter much to the plot, like how Africa and Asia did not matter much to the European theater of the two world wars, or places like Ethiopia (probably the historical nucleus in the legend of "Prester John"), India or China did not matter to the Crusades. The notion that all of it is ruled by Sauron is naïve and probably misguided, there may be anything from sparsely populated wilderness to vast empires out there; in either case, they are not part of the conflict between Sauron and the Free Peoples alliance. And it is true that epic events do not necessarily involve the whole world. The Iliad is all about the siege and eventual conquest of a single city by warriors from a not so large and not so far away country (Greece), and none of the major powers of the time (such as Egypt) play any role in it.

As a creator myself, I'm also very conscious that Tolkien never published anything besides the Hobbit, LOTR, and some poetry, probably because he wasn't satisfied with it. Even the Silmarillion is posthumous. I understand fans' excitement at seeing it all, but I expect he'd have mixed feelings about it.

Again you are right. Tolkien appears to have been never content with his creation, and constantly revised it. This is the main problem linguists exploring (or trying to compose new texts in) his languages are facing: there is no finalized Historical Grammar of the Eldarin Languages or the like, only stacks of jumbled notes which are inconsistent with each other and where it is hard to find out which version is "valid". This is the reason why the "Elfconners" (as the linguists entrusted by Christopher Tolkien with the edition of his father's linguistic notes are often called, after a conference, the "Elfcon", they had organized; but the name also has connotations of confidence schemers) are so slow at editing and publishing those materials, and everyone trying to write new texts in Quendian languages inevitably must be a conlanger in themselves making up "Neo-Quenya" or "Neo-Sindarin" in order to fill the gaps in our knowledge - a practice the "Elfconners" consider illegitimate.