Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
I suppose it is mildly interesting and typical of Tolkien that, while he mentions kingdoms and monarchs, he seems to avoid the C-word and the E-word. Is that simply a function of his debt to a medieval system of governance?
|
Tolkien I think was intentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) vague about a lot of things. There is little information about commerce outside of the Shire (like, who minted the currency for Sam to have silver pennies to buy Bill the horse?). What mentions there are of trade seem very rudimentary (Floating wine barrels down a river is no basis for a sound economy). And his quasi-medieval governmental structures do not advance beyond a very basic, conservative and one-dimensional view of the monarchy and the bare mention of feudal lords in vassalage to the king (even the Gondorion stewardship seems preposterous, given the hundreds of years of ruling stewards without a change in title or a palace coup).
And that, ladies and gentleman, is one of the few things that really irks me about Middle-earth chronology: its stagnance. Thousands of years without any real political or societal change (and it could be said that Gondorion rule was indeed Numenorean rule with only a change of the ruling seat). There is little change in technology (unless you refer to the numerous anachronisms in the Hobbit), and warfare does not advance along technological lines (like the absence of plate armor and the use of gunpowder only after 3 full Ages of Middle-earth history). The interminable stasis over many millenia for me seems rather unbelievable (and for a fantasy, suspension of disbelief is paramount).
I suppose I am nitpicking...but that's what Tolkien discussion forums (or fora) are for. If not here, where else?