How did Tolkien actually portray the Rohirrim?: What are we really discussing here?

» isengar - What are we really discussing here?

A lot of this talk about determining where Tolkien derived his ideas for the peoples of Middle-earth is often nonsensical and aimless and certainly biased. This is a problem I have also encountered in mainstream academic criticism and it's the reason for my skepticism of anyone who claims to know the answer but then conducts a treatise that beats around the bush. Most often these are single-minded people who either purposely do their research in search of the answers they want, ignoring any evidence that's contradictory, or they simply lack the insight to see deeply into what's really happening. They therefore produce a manuscript that is clear, articulate and easy to follow in the point-by-point unfolding of its final conclusion, but generally all it provides is an opinion, not the answer. Of course, this generally doesn't come to light until someone else (hopefully just as smart and articulate but perhaps more insightful) has the gall to do their own research and produce an equally well-written (or superior) treatise refuting the prior one. This happens time and again in academics.

As to the Rohirrim debate, both sides appear guilty of this folly. All I'm seeing are a lot of surface comparisons that don't help us gain any headway into the deeper, meaningful levels of Tolkien's (sub)creational process. It's the equivalent to arguing over the similarities and dissimilarities between dogs. "Poodles and chihuahuas aren't the same!" "Yeah, well, you can see both on the streets of New York's Upper Eastside so it can be said they share a certain equivalence in 'cultural' existence. Besides they both go on all fours, both their tongues hang out and both bark." "Yeah but they are completely different breeds." "So?" "They're just different, ok!" That's what these discussions boil down to. Neither side is truly hearing the other out.

To me, it's apparent that the discussion wasn't a fruitful one to begin with. Like discussing the compositions of apples and oranges, when what we enjoy (or don't) about both is their taste. What is it about the taste and feel of an apple that reminds us of an orange or not? In our case, two things always come into play.

1) that the root of everything in Middle-earth is language

2) Tolkien's adamant insistence that his work not be allegorized

Tolkien admits that the linguistic procedure of the Rohirrim is Anglo-Saxon in nature, or at least in representation, but that the derivation stops there. This can appear contradictory but not if you understand the two things mentioned.

First, language is the root of culture. Language is constantly in flux, transforming with its usage. But culture adapts to fit language, not the other way around. Tolkien knew this and used it, otherwise how could he have (sub)created the world of Middle-earth out of Quenya, Sindarin, etc. As much as language can represent our thoughts, it can also often dictate the way we think. Anyone who's studied a language other than their own can see that. Even if we talk about slang, this phenomenon can be witnessed. That Tolkien modelled the Rohirrim's means of verbal expression after the Anglo-Saxon says a lot. But it does not mean that we are therefore justified in turning them into a direct allegory for the Anglos-Saxon culture. That's simply erroneous.

Tolkien did what every great, sensitive artist does: he used the wealth of his knowledge to recreate in a refreshing way several of the pleasures we cherish as human beings. In Tolkien's case, we're talking about our love for language, for culture and customs, for scenery and land, for bloodlines and physical struggles, for preserving what's good but, most encompassing of all, our love of Beauty in every form. And Tolkien was working from a very Western European-centered heart so naturally many Europeans will feel this strongly since to them it is innate. If Tolkien had been American or Puerto Rican or African or Latin American or Asian, it would have been a very different Middle-earth indeed.

So I can understand when Western Europeans, particularly the English, say they know what Tolkien is talking about when he describes Middle-earth, because they are THERE where he was and where the things that inspired him inspire them as well. But at the same time, there's a universality to it because he works from the basic human level we all share. So some of us will feel at home with Hobbits in the Shire, or we'll love Gandalf, or we'll sense something special about the Noldor and Sindar Elves, or want to be courageous like the Rohirrim and Northmen, or want to be part of a dying empire like Gondor, or be spooked by the ruins of Arnor or poke fun at Dwarves. I personally feel a certain excitement when I hear Italian-sounding names among the Hobbits like Belladonna Took, for example. It feels like he slipped in a bit of the Italians in there for me. It doesn't mean there's any actual correlation between his use of such words and the Italian culture, but he captured the feel that language can give us in names and that's the point.

There is a concept called creative license that every artist is entitled to and should use. Tolkien unquestionably made good use of this, changing his creations just enough so that we couldn't make any direct allegorical connections between Middle-earth's history and our own. Allegory is juvenile and for suckers. In forging Middle-earth, Tolkien wanted a world that was concrete and real but disassociated from all the sad baggage of our own. A time before Time. A world that could have been, that might have been, that--as far as all our hearts are concerned--is.

-- posted by isengar