[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...