Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalwendë
The English landscape has been that way for millennia by the hands of man and their farming activities. Tolkien liked to see green fields and hedgerows as much as he liked to see woodland, and before men began to farm, most of England was just wildwood. There is a delicate balance between farming and nature in this country and if farmers change their methods or just stop farming then we'd actually lose a lot of the beautiful landscapes as we know them.
If you take the Lakeland fells as just one example - hill farmers using traditional methods of turning sheep out on the same fields each year helps to keep the hillsides free of gorse and a place where wildflowers and wildlife can flourish. If farmers stop doing this - and many are, as it's about as hard a life as you could imagine, being a hill farmer - then the landscape would actually be quite ugly. Farmers in the UK are subsidised to maintain old practices in an attempt to stop some landscapes being despoiled as 'natural' isn't always that nice.
Tolkien enjoyed seeing the pretty, well tended fields of agricultural areas as much as he liked the woods and the wilder places - maybe even more if you look at how scary his woodlands are!
|
I understand that England and Alaska are quite dissimilar, what is good for Alaska is not necessarily good for England. However, what is wrong with an "ugly" landscape if it is natural? If the land were left uncultivated long enough it would probably stop looking so unpleasant as it would be reclaimed slowly by nature. However, it's true that England has some very interesting ecosystems that have adapted to agriculture, and agriculture must be maintained in these areas if they are to retain their present ecosystem.
But just because something has been one way for millennia does not necessarily mean it has to stay that way. Think of England though geologic time, where a few millennia mean nothing it all in the scope of all of earth's, and England's, history. Your beautiful landscapes have only been around for a very small amount of time - and are not naturally occurring - though I'm sure they're lovely none the less.
I don't personally know much about Tolkien's preferences for wilderness, but I believe you hit upon a very important point when you mentioned his penchant for depicting frightening woodlands, a point that has been discussed on The Downs before. He seemed to possess a very primeval view on dense, old growth forests. You might notice that place like the Old Forest and Mirkwood were shown to be dark and dangerous places, full of malice and creeping beasts; whilst open, cleared land was safe and a desirable place to be. I will note however that Tolkien presented pleasent creatures like the Ents, which went in contrast to his otherwise medieval take on trees and woodland. I, as a lover of forests and wilderness, appreciate this addition, and perhaps it can make up for Tolkien's otherwise derogative depictions of forests and wilderness.