Middle Earth - Unstuck in Time?

Lobelia Sackville-Baggins had an umbrella, and Bilbo had a clock on the mantelpeice. The most advanced thing in Minas Tirith seem to be the siege-engines, whatever they were.

Generally speaking, Tolkien favored art over technology. He doesn't describe Feanor's palantiri as technology; they are art. I think it's not really a question of advancing technology.

In Middle-Earth, I think it's a question of technology-growth being a sign of the decay of the arts. The highest civilizations were the artistic ones (Noldor, and all that high art in Valinor.)

Each race had its art. You might argue that the "art" I refer to is actually a craft, but I would argue that a craft taken to perfection is an art anyway.

For the hobbits, it was actually working the earth. They were superb farmers and gardeners, and they even lived in the earth. When they lost that touch with the soil, and Sharkey built his mills and ugly sheds and started smoking the place out, that was the Shire's greatest catastrophe.

The art of the elves varied, but I think you could examine where the "falls from grace" took place. Feanor & co, is obvioius. Celebrimbor's ringmaking in alliance with a Maia-of-ill-repute comes to mind.

Dwarves are artists in metal and stone.

In terms of men--

The rangers' art is to disappear in the woods and come out again exactly where they mean to. Not much technology there, but lots of "woodcraft".

It strikes me that the art of Bree is that men and hobbits dwell together peaceably sharing real-estate and ale.

When I think of Rohan, I think their horses are their art. Equestrians will understand.

Gondor-- what art have they left? Numenor was once glorious, but their fall was so long ago. They are the most decayed race of all, I think (" How the mighty have fallen. ") They are too busy fighting; not their fault; but Faramir-- a noble example of an "Old Numenorian"-- still loves the arts, and loves the sword not for its brightness but for what it defends. In contrast, Denethor -- an example, I think, of a fallen "Old Numenorean"-- perceives power as the essence of life, and he despairs when it is taken from him. One gets the sense that Faramir could care less about power.

In answer to your question "So how do I write RPG technology"-- my gut instinct is, remember that technology is generally negative and avoid it as best you can. Middle-Earth is about art and character. Whenever technology is mentioned (aside from a hobbits' clock or umbrella) it's a bad thing. Saruman and Sauron are the engineers. The good guys are the artists.

ps. On a tightly related note:

Aiwendil has written an absolutely ***brilliant***, must-read essay regarding the height and decline of music in Middle-Earth.

Aiwendil's essay: Music in Middle-Earth

[Ealasaide]

bolcotook - Perhaps technology was the wrong term to use to communicate the point I intended to make. I hesitated over using it for the very reasons you cite, i.e. that technology as such is portrayed as evil in Middle Earth while art and pastoral work such as farming is portrayed as good. It is interesting that you classify farming as art, but I suppose it can be seen as such when practiced with the sort of dedication brought to it by the hobbits. The same for woodcraft, horses, etc. Good point!

The question I was really trying to ask, though, was when writing in Middle Earth, what line of detail does one go with? Broadswords, obviously, not rapiers. No firearms or cannon. But does one visualize a Viking-style longship when taking to the sea? Or a three-masted ship with a quarterdeck, multiple sails and complex rigging, only sans cannon, of course.

Obviously, there does seem to be a difference in technology between the various city-states, now that you bring up Lobelia's umbrella and the clock on the mantle at Bag End. I can not seem to recall any mention of such objects in Minas Tirith.

That brings us back to Mark's notion of time travel parallelling physical travel.
Hmmm...

**************************

EDIT: thanks for the link, Bolcotook. I will be sure to check it out!

[tar-ancalime]

Which begs another question... has technology remained stagnant in Middle Earth throughout the ages or has it advanced at all with time? Are the ships, weapons, etc, all the just the same in the third age as they were in the first?

Putting aside the technology/art question (which is a pertinent one, of course, but as always I'm going to take the easy way out and sidestep the thorniest issue ), I think an argument can be made that the level of technology actually declines over time in Tolkien's world: after Feanor, no more Silmarils or Palantiri were made. After Celebrimbor and Sauron were finished, no more Rings of Power were made (I'll admit, there are all sorts of good reasons for this to be the case...). After Numenor sank into the sea, no one made such strong ships anymore. Even the Trees and the Lamps could not be re-crafted. On a grander scale, after the face of the earth was marred by Melkor it could not be re-made in its perfection, and perhaps this is at the root of the idea of "technology" (or whatever it is) declining over time.

The other point you bring up, about levels of technology varying in different cultures, can be explained in another way, at least as regards umbrellas and mantelpiece clocks. The source for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is, of course, the Red Book of Westmarch, written by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam. For all three of them, the Shire is home and it is the embodiment of safety and ordinariness (sorry--there's got to be a better way to make that word into a noun!). Therefore, when describing it, the authors take note of the comfortable and ordinary parts of their surroundings. But when they travel to Rivendell, to Lorien, and to Gondor, they are in foreign countries. They are awestruck by the timelessness of the Elves and the majesty of Minas Tirith. While I can't seem to get my mind around the idea of Celeborn with a pocket-watch (because of the uncertainty of passing time in Lorien), I see no reason why these things couldn't have existed in Gondor and even in Rivendell--the hobbits just didn't take notice of them because they were so ordinary. The descriptions of these places and the people living there are, as most travel narratives are, focused on what is different, impressive, or unique about the places being described. So Theoden may well have had umbrellas by the dozen, but Merry just wouldn't have bothered to tell Frodo about them.

EDIT: I just realized that the above is an awful example, because Merry of all the hobbits would have been the most likely to notice Theoden's umbrellas and mantelpiece clocks. He was interested in the similarities between the Rohirrim and the hobbits, linguistically and otherwise. I sure hope that doesn't deflate my entire argument! But if it does, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time!

[Imladris]

I am no scholar, but here are my thoughts upon your problem:

When in doubt, leave it as vague as possible.

Of course, being vague is never a good thing, but, let me try to explain with the example of the ship: most ships are pretty much the same. They have the sails and mast, etc. You can also base the ships upon the races that inspired Tolkien's peoples (they were inspired, weren't they, or am I remembering wrong?). But my point is this: instead of focusing on the ship, you can focus on other things, thus making your writing descriptive, yet leaving the object of doubt residing safely in vagueness.

As Bb mentioned, RPG/fan fictions can either be rigidly Tolkien's style, or just a looser form of that style. Either way, Tolkien himself was not that descriptive of details in true mythic style. He gave us enough, and I'm sure that we can draw on that knowledge for our own writings.

Originally Posted by Ealasaide

Which begs another question... has technology remained stagnant in Middle Earth throughout the ages or has it advanced at all with time? Are the ships, weapons, etc, all the just the same in the third age as they were in the first?

I believe that technology has advanced. In the Hobbit it is mentioned that we do not see hobbits because they are scared of the Big Folks. He also wrote it as a mythology, a place in this world before ours (ME does look very similar to Europe by the by).

[Ealasaide]

When in doubt, leave it as vague as possible.

Ah, Imladris, you are obviously not the glutton for detail that I am! If I am talking about a ship, I want to make the reader see the ship with as much detail as possible. I want to come as close to putting my reader on the ship beside my character as I possibly can. If my character is a sailor, for example, I would like for him to be able to talk about his vessel with at least the appearance of being knowledgeable about his vessel. I would like for him to be able to talk about the decks and the sails and usage of the sails, not be stuck saying merely, "hmmm, the wind is up. Let's sail!" No insult intended, but isn't ignoring specifics of detail the lazy way out?

As for Tolkein's not concentrating on details like this, I do believe he had other things on his mind, seeing as he was creating a new mythology... but we have the mythology in place already, many thanks to him, and can afford to place a little more emphasis on detail. So far, I have just been winging along based on whatever seemed appropriate in a given storyline, which has worked pretty well as far as it goes. I am not looking for a definitive listing of what is and is not available to the folks in Middle Earth, but rather a general consensus of what people's impressions are based on their own reading and interpretation of Tolkein's work. Tolkein could be quite descriptive, though, where such description was approriate. To say that he ignored specifics in "true mythic style" is to sell both Prof. Tolkein and "mythic style" a short bill of goods. Go back to the source material of, say, the Iliad or the Odyssey. Homer could go on forever with rather mind-numbing detail at times.

tar-anclime - good point regarding point of view! I had not considered the source there, myself, but you are right as to what you said in your edit. I think a hobbit such as Merry would be first to note anything that made him think of home, the most ordinary things being the most notable because they would bring with them a sense of normality and comfort to stressful situation. So, are there really umbrellas in Edoras? I tend to think not for precisely the reason that Merry neglected to mention them.

Imladris - could the fact that hobbits tend to hide from big folks really be interpretted as an advance in technology? It seems to me - and it's just my off-the-cuff opinion - that that would indicate a change in social interaction, rather than any technological change. Why do the hobbits make themselves scarce? I believe Tolkein said it was because they were shy by nature and that big people were noisy and blundered about with very little care for their surroundings. This does bring to mind a less pastoral mind-set on the part of the big people, but I fail to see the connection between this and technology. I'd be very interested in seeing how you arrived at this conclusion!


tar-ancalime - you also made a good point about the decline of technology in that no more Silmarils or Palantiri were made, no ships so strong as those made by the Numenoreans, etc, etc, but doesn't that also coincide with a decline in magic? It seems to me that LotR takes place at a time when magic is slowly giving way to the ordinary, the mundane, the world of men, as opposed to the world of elves and elven magic.

(I know the term "magic" is problematic in speaking of Middle Earth, but I use it loosely here for lack of a better term.)

the decline of technology in that no more Silmarils or Palantiri were made, no ships so strong as those made by the Numenoreans, etc, etc, but doesn't that also coincide with a decline in magic?

I suspect Galadriel, and the rope-making elf in the Farewell To Lorien chapter, would call that a decline in art.

"Are these magic cloaks?"

"I do not know what you mean by that... Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

. This does bring to mind a less pastoral mind-set on the part of the big people, but I fail to see the connection between this and technology.

Perhaps the connection is that as men increase their comfort in and dependance on technology, and remove themselves further and further from the soil and the earth, hobbits grow still less and less interested in men-- regarding them with ever-increasing suspicion.

[Ealasaide]

"Are these magic cloaks?"

"I do not know what you mean by that... Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

With this example, we fall back into tar-ancalime's issue of point of view. For the elves, who are inherently magical persons, this would not be magic, but would be art, quite ordinary for them. But for hobbits and men, who are not capable of crafting such things, it would fall into the area of magic. The cloaks are not magical in that they are not given their power by any charm or spell, but they are magical in that they can accomplish by their mere existence that which is beyond human craftsmanship, hence magical. Under these standards, magic is in the eye of the beholder. To a dog, a television is pretty darn magical, but to the TV repairman, it is just ordinary stuff.

With the decline of the presence of elves in Middle Earth, we see a decline in magic... or art, if you prefer to think of it that way. That being said, however, art and technology can co-exist, but can technology and magic? It seems to me that by it's mere nature, technology eliminates the possibility of magic. The advent of the Age of Men in Middle Earth would seem to bring with it a renaissance of technology and an end to magic. That's where I get the impression of sadness in Tolkein's work, a yearning for the magical in a place where magic is rapidly disappearing.