Tolkien's Middle-earth doesn't look like Medieval Europe

» Hernalt - ...

This essay is worthy of devoting mental storage to a 'wait-and-see' attitude. But even from my first readings of Hobbit and LOTR, the conspicuous scarcity of the fairy-tale tags "knight" and "castle" told me that he was steering clear of a fairy/medeival motif. (As if Hobbit top-hats and pocket-watches hadn't already made that plain.)What remains is the greater-than-life speechlessness of the Argonath. Only a solidified, centralized society could remotely achieve such 'public' works as did Gondor. No Argonath in 13th century England.

-- posted by Hernalt

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» everyman - Yeah, but what did Tolkien want?

J.R.R. is dead. Because of this no one can get an absolute answer to the question, 'What should M.E. look like?' The closest thing to J.R.R. we have is his son and heir to the throne, Christopher Tolkien. If anyone is equipped to answer THE question it would be Christopher. Does anyone know if Jackson has approached him?

-- posted by everyman

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Rasvarca - Middle-Earth Medieval?

Hello Michael,

Re: 'Tolkien's Middle-earth doesn't look like Medieval Europe'
First, let me say I appreciate what you apparently mean to do with your essay: Take out of Middle-Earth the trivializing and boring Medievalist clichés that so dominate the fantasy / sword and sorcery genre. Medievalist clichés and shallownesses tend for me to ruin with a capital R any fantasy story they happen to pollute. However, the Medievalist clichés you mention in your essay are probably an inevitable part of the genre Tolkien himself revitalized; even if Tolkien's vision itself was far less cliché-ridden.

A recent example of these choking clichés was shat forth in the form of the celluloid obscenity known as 'Dungeons & Dragons'. That movie could help destroy the very genre Tolkien reinvigorated single-handedly. (It is in part for this reason that I was so amazed and entertained by 'Gladiator'. The battle scenes and the dress, the architecture and the attitudes seemed so removed from these clichés that I was instantly ready to overlook any shortcomings the film may otherwise have had!) The game of the same name, 'Dungeons & Dragons', that is, has helped solidify, I think, Medievalist clichés as the very substance of fantasy. It's almost as if these clichés have become the assumed building blocks of entire stories. Any variation, or elimination of the clichés seem to be treated as evidence of a failure to understand and appreciate the genre. This is a sad, sad state of affairs.

For me, The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, is a far more interesting fantasy story than 'Dungeons & Dragons'. It is so much more interesting, as much for the visions it does not conjure as for the ones it does, that it is simply in another class entirely. Yet, somehow, when someone, in Hollywood or elsewhere, deems to conjure up a fantasy story it is the feel and substance of the latter that hops so, so readily to mind. This can be explained by laziness as much as anything else I think. Granted, some people are perhaps genuinely excited and inspired by the Medievalist vision. John Howe is apparently an example of this. Howe is a great artist and his Medievalist portrayals are beautiful. I agree, however, that John Howe is too much of Medievalist to be an interesting interpreter of Tolkien. I prefer a more ancient interpretation of Middle-Earth.

Still, I'm not so sure of your interpretation of Tolkien's vision. How we wish to envision Middle-Earth and how Tolkien did are two different things. Even considering the thousands of words Tolkien used, Middle-Earth is still under the influence of the interpretation and envisioning of the reader.

You state that Tolkien did not envision Middle-Earth in a Medievalist way. But where does Tolkien make this clear? Certainly much of his language is very Medievalist: "king", "squire", "knights", and other less obvious examples. But you seem to take a two-track, and perhaps contradictory, course. You seem to be saying that Middle-Earth is a more ancient place than Medieval Europe (I hope you're right; I certainly try to see it that way). However, when it comes to the Shire Hobbits you seem almost to want to say they are sort of post-Medieval; you use the word "modern." I'm not sure I understand your point here. Is it simply that Tolkien's vision is too complex to be simply Medievalist?

Another factor is some of Tolkien's own illustrations. In particular is the painting of Tumladen and the citadel of Gondolin. The citadel looks, as many might interpret it, very much like the sort of castle with its tall, spindly towers topped by conical roofs ubiquitous in Medieval Europe. Another is the picture he painted of Tol Sirion. The fortress there can also be said to be very Medievalist. There are also other examples. My point here isn't that Tolkien's vision is shallower for these things. His vision is grand in spite, perhaps, of these visualizations – visualizations which, of course, only occur to us as Medievalist clichés because of their years of trivialization and omnipresence -- familiarity breeds contempt, as they say. Frankly, in John Howe's defense, his paintings are certainly no more Medievalist than some of Tolkien's.

I think the only thing we can say for sure is that Tolkien's vision may not have been thoroughly medievalist in every sense but that it certainly had strong medievalist overtones. Moreover, Tolkien's vision is not simply a thing fixed and complete. Along the lines of what I stated above, all art takes a creator and an audience to make it what it is (to make it the many things it is and might be). And while the creator has a huge power over the vision, without an audience his work is completely in vain and unknown. Sorta like a tree falling in a forest when no one's around.

Thanks for your insights and passion,
Ron Leighton

-- posted by Rasvarca

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Middle-Earth Medieval?

In response to message posted by Rasvarca:

To suggest that a listing of facts is "an interpretation of Tolkien's vision" is weak and misleading.

All the article does is examine the argument for medievalism in Middle-earth and compare Tolkien's depiction of Middle-earth to medieval Europe. No interpretation has ever been necessary.

"You state that Tolkien did not envision Middle-Earth in a Medievalist way. But where does Tolkien make this clear?"

If Tolkien envisioned Middle-earth in such a way, he would not have denied medieval connections, and he would have stipulated medieval connections.

Since he DID deny medieval connections, and since he did NOT stipulate medieval connections, it's a real stretch of the imagination to argue that Tolkien MAY have envisioned Middle-earth in a way contrary to what he said about it.

In other words, the medievalist argument is flawed from the very beginning because it disagrees with what the author himself says.

"King", "squire", and "knights" are simply words. They are used to translate both classical and medieval terms with much the same meaning. There is therefore nothing MEDIEVAL in Tolkien's use of these words. One might as well argue that Julius Caesar was medieval, because you can find these words in translations of his works.

What the essay lacks is references to Tolkien's letters and the books. It wasn't written to be a scholarly argument against medievalism. It was just an informal explanation of why Middle-earth is not medieval, is not modelled on medieval Europe, and shouldn't be portrayed as a pseudo-medieval place.

Everything I attributed to Tolkien comes from Tolkien. There is no interpretation involved in this sort of discussion. Tolkien said that the events of The Lord of the Rings took place about 6,000 years ago. He said that he modelled the Shire on a village in Warwickshire. He said the Rohirrim were not Anglo-Saxons, and that they were not medieval.

As for Tolkien's drawings of fortresses, they bear little resemblance to medieval architecture. Tolkien's styles are best described as fantastic. They appear to be a blend of realistic styles from throughout history and of unrealistic styles.

What we can say for sure is that there is far less of medieval Europe in Middle-earth than many people assume or argue for. We can also say that Tolkien did try to tell people not to make such close associations. It's a shame the author wasn't heeded. I think people miss out on a lot when they narrow their focus to a medieval spectrum.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Rasvarca - Re: Re: Middle-Earth Medieval?

Hello Michael,

Perhaps I am not understanding your meaning of "medieval", but I certainly didn't take it to mean literally medieval. I took it to mean medieval-like. Tolkien of course was not locating his story in an obviously medieval time period. Certainly, however, a fantasy story set in any actual time period - say, Tolkien's 6,000 years ago time period - can be made to be, or seem medieval-like. Whatever his intention, his stories and other materials leave a vaguely medieval-like feel. This is not a judgment one way or the other. It is simply how it occurs to me.

I asked explicitly for clarification as to where Tolkien denies medievalist connections. You state that he makes these statements again, but you do not say where. I'd simply like to read the quotes and consider their context and meaning myself.

On another point... You write:

"King", "squire", and "knights" are simply words. They are used to translate both classical and medieval terms with much the same meaning. There is therefore nothing MEDIEVAL in Tolkien's use of these words. One might as well argue that Julius Caesar was medieval, because you can find these words in translations of his works."

The exact origin and antiquity of these terms is irrelevant to my point: they conjure medievalist images. That's not Tolkien's fault. The clichés are simply more powerful even than Tolkien's powerful prose.

Same goes for his illustrations. I think the two paintings I mentioned obviously reflect a medieval-like vision.

As for your last comment - "I think people miss out on a lot when they narrow their focus to a medieval spectrum." - I agree. But Tolkien, God love him, is not entirely blameless for the "medieval spectrum." Perhaps if he were alive he would find a way to unravel the "medieval spectrum" and up-play the more ancient vision he apparently favored.

Rasvarca

-- posted by Rasvarca

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Re: Middle-Earth Medieval?

In response to message posted by Rasvarca:

"Whatever his intention, his stories and other materials leave a vaguely medieval-like feel. This is not a judgment one way or the other. It is simply how it occurs to me."

His stories also have a vaguely modern feel, and a vaguely Iliadic feel, and a vaguely Biblical feel.

Vague feels don't define the world of the stories.

"Medieval" means a lot of things, but usually when people say that Tolkien's stories are medieval they mean that Tolkien's world resembles medieval Europe, and his characterizations resemble medieval characterizations. Both the world and the characterizations demonstrably have powerful roots in classical literature.

"I asked explicitly for clarification as to where Tolkien denies medievalist connections. You state that he makes these statements again, but you do not say where. I'd simply like to read the quotes and consider their context and meaning myself."

Citations are provided in the article.

"The exact origin and antiquity of these terms ["king", "squire", "knight"] is irrelevant to my point: they conjure medievalist images."

Not to the extent that scholars translating the ancient Greek and Roman writers should not use them for those purposes. It's simply naive to argue that any story which uses the terms "king", "squire", and "knight" is conjuring medievalist images. Kings have been around for thousands of years. So have knights and squires. There is nothing particularly medieval about any of these concepts, and anyone who assigns only medieval connotations to them just doesn't know enough about to history to see their broader meanings.

Tolkien understood the history behind the concepts.

Tolkien didn't view himself as a medievalist, and he didn't limit himself to using medieval sources and inspirations. He certainly didn't confine his writing to medieval motifs.

It's not a fault of Tolkien if some people today misunderstand what he did. It's not a "fault" to misunderstand what Tolkien did. But you miss out on a lot when you try to fit Tolkien's square peg into the round medievalist hole.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» davidbofinger - History and Look of Middle Earth

Tolkien was fond of taking different elements of a culture from different backgrounds. The Noldor, for instance, have a language derived from Finnish but nothing in common culturally with the Finns. The Rohirrim have a language that might be Anglo-Saxon, but as Michael Martinez points out their folkways are very different: I'd suggest the Magyars as a reasonable analogue though it could be lots of people.

So if we want to discuss whence Tolkien took his inspiration we need to break it down to smaller elements. The questions aren't "where did he get Middle Earth from" or even "where did he get Gondor from" but down at the level of "where did he get Gondorian military organisation from".

I've argued elsewhere (see http://www.geocities.com/davidbofinger/n... ) that he took the backplot history of the Numenorean Realms in Exile from the history of the Roman empire. In particular, Gondor's from the Byzantine empire. So I'd claim that's a mediaeval element.

But Michael Martinez is more interested in the look than the history. He points out that Egyptian was Tolkien's intent, though I'm a little unclear on what era that means. One issue with this is that there's no impression given that Gondor is anything like as hot as Egypt, and clothing and armour styles are closely determined by temperature. And weapon styles get determined by the target's armour. So that's going to look odd. The practice of carving stone heads and putting them up on the river is very Egyptian, though.

Apropos of little, the Anglo-Saxons weren't poorly equipped or badly organised. They were an infantry army, but quite a good infantry army. In fact 1066 pitted three of Europe's best military leaders and best military machines against each other.

-- posted by davidbofinger

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Mataxes - Re: Middle-Earth Medieval?

In response to message posted by Rasvarca:

I am going to veer slightly off topic here, but I do have one or two points about this whole pseudo-medieval discussion going on.

First of all, as the only person on the planet (apparently) who enjoyed "Dungeons & Dragons", I have to step forward and put up some sort of defense. I will hardly argue that the film is a great fantasy movie, but I wonder why people expected such great things out of a film based on a game that is often as cheesy, cliche-ridden, and anachronistic as the film. In other words, I think the film captured the feel and tone of the game wonderfully. I had fun watching it, and in my book that's plenty (it is called entertainment after all).

To bring this around to the discussion at hand, I don't think there is any great harm in medieval interpretations of Middle Earth. Those tropes (a kinder word than "cliches") are such a deeply rooted part of Western culture, that any kind of historical tale, real or fictionalized, will have those popular images associated with it.

Look at the development and growth of the Arthurian legends -- certainly a place where medievalism has run rampant over the years. As a scholar of European myth and legend (medieval and otherwise), Tolkien must have been keenly aware of the traditions and common imagery of that imagined past. Indeed, it is clear that many elements of ME were taken from various folkloric tradtions.

Finally, to adress the recent comment that we're a little too analytical in this whole thing -- I don't think it is intended as any kind of slight against the visionnary work of Peter Jackson. For many of us, a more thorough understanding of LotR enhances our appreciation for the craft displayed by Jackson in his interpretation.

At least, I know that's how it is for me.

-- posted by Mataxes

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Middle-Earth Medieval?

In response to message posted by Mataxes:

Tolkien was not nearly as concerned with the Anglo-Saxons of 1066 as many people seem to believe. The Anglo-Saxons of the 11th century were more sophisticated than the Anglo-Saxons of the 5th-9th centuries, whose language and literature were the core of Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon studies (and though the literature came from the later part of that period, Tolkien's work in Germanic languages goes back to Gothic and even further -- he was a Philologist, not an Anglo-Saxonist, and he was concerned with the growth and development of the languages he studied without concern for arbitrary chronological boundaries).

Clothing is, according to Tolkien himself (in Letter 211), one of the least important details in his depiction of Middle-earth. He assumes (as story-teller) that the clothing is appropriate to the climate, culture, and period. Well, what's the period? Circa 4,000 BCE (not 1100 CE). And what sort of clothing did people wear then? Tolkien had no idea, but he was assuming that some very ancient, highly developed cultures had survived.

Certain clothing styles have persisted throughout Europe for thousands of years: shirts, breeches, cloaks, boots, and other types of clothing with which we are familiar today were being worn as far back as 2,000 BCE. Many clothing styles that people today assume would be "medieval" would have been -- to a knowledgeable person like Tolkien -- timeless, and therefore not an indication of any specific period.

That is undoubtedly why he armed his warriors in chain-mail shirts, a very ancient form of armor which existed up to 1,000 years before what we label Medieval Europe arbitrarily emerged in the chronologies.

Jackson's portrayal of Middle-earth is extremely Medievalistic (and intentionally so -- a number of people directly involved with the films have acknowledged that intent). Medievalism is closely associated with fantasy literature, fantasy gaming, and fantasy film-making.

It's just not something that J.R.R. Tolkien closely associated with Middle-earth. He distanced himself from medievalism (and Tom Shippey even goes so far as to say that Tolkien distanced himself from "Anglo-Saxon"-ism, seldom using that phrase, but preferring "Old English" when speaking of the language which was spoken in England from Circa 500 CE to 1066).

Josh says he doesn't feel there is harm in medieval interpretations of Middle-earth. In prinicple, I agree. Everyone is free to interpret Tolkien's vision as they wish. But it is my experience that many people want to know what Tolkien thought Middle-earth was. A great deal of ignorance and misinformation has been passed around through the years, and Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth has been buried under a landslide of ridiculous assumptions and absurd arguments.

He did not view himself as a medievalist, and he did not portray Middle-earth as some sort of pseudo-medieval Europe. It's a shame if the truth offends some people's sensibilities. We all hold to our cherished beliefs with great stubborness -- I am no different -- but I am not going to back down on this issue. Too much revisionism has gone into Tolkien commentary, and the fact so many people feel it necessary to defend the indefensible argument that Middle-earth is pseudo-medieval shows that a great deal of education is required.

The movies only exacerbate the situation, and it's worth pointing out that they do so.

Ultimately, the people who refuse to accept Tolkien's innumerable non-medieval influences are the ones who lose out in these debates. They may enjoy and love the Middle-earth they envision, but those of them who feel they are pursuing a "puristic" line of thought are quite mistaken.

When "medieval" and "Anglo-Saxon" are no longer closely associated with Middle-earth in the common view, people will have moved closer to Tolkien's vision of Middle-earth.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» tasha_stephenson - I know the meaning of what Medieval is

I know what the word medieval is and people that dont should take a minute or so to go on the internet and research medieval

-- posted by tasha_stephenson

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions