Utopian Shire

[Laurinquë]

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.

[Lalwendë]

England has been under cultivation for so long that our species are thoroughly adapted to it and if we went back to wildwoods then we'd also lose many of those species. Red squirrels for example - as they can now only thrive in isolated pockets of woodland and even then they struggle. We've also a lot of birds adapted to hedgerows and birds of prey adapted over millennia to hunting open fields for mice and voles.

I think Tolkien liked variety of landscape to be honest - he has these vast woodlands which are untamed and frankly creepy, but he wouldn't have had any wide open vistas to write about if people hadn't cleared them! Taking just one place, the area of the Barrow-Downs must have at one time been cleared of gorse by setting sheep to graze there or it wouldn't have looked like that.

[Bêthberry]

This discussion between Laurinquë and Lalwendë brings in an important aspect of Tolkien's evironmental stance. It wasn't green he was after so much as beauty.

Sub-creation was for Tolkien an essential activity of human beings, as an expression of both beauty and power or control. Essentially as Lal points out the English landscape has been sub-created, with several effects, the most significant for many being an aesthetic quality often associated with Beauty. It is a beauty which has not always been associated with the Sublime, another aesthetic quality, which at least in the 18C was regarded as a quality of the kind of environment Laur speaks of, Mount Blanc in the Swiss Alps (which I read as her Alaskan wilderness, neither of which is a man-made environment (except as the oil and gas conglomerates and animal-hunting-by-airplane-advocates have their impact). This is a very different kind of beauty, one not associated with human sub-creation. It is a kind of landscape which often, in my reading of the historical expansion of North America, developes an adversarial relationship between humans and nature--and it is this very adversarial aspect which stimulates such tourist and sports development as heli-skiing and mountain climbing and championship snowmobiling races.

Beauty being always in the eye of the beholder, it would however seem that Tolkien would prefer, as a Utopia, a landscape that spoke of sub-creation.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This discussion between Laurinquë and Lalwendë brings in an important aspect of Tolkien's evironmental stance. It wasn't green he was after so much as beauty....

....This is a very different kind of beauty, one not associated with human sub-creation. It is a kind of landscape which often, in my reading of the historical expansion of North America, developes an adversarial relationship between humans and nature--and it is this very adversarial aspect which stimulates such tourist and sports development as heli-skiing and mountain climbing and championship snowmobiling races.

I have long been dismayed by the poor stewardship we Americans have of our land. I can still remember watching on TV in the '70's the Cuyahoga River in Ceveland burning (yes, the actual river was on fire from petroleum and chemical run-off!). Here in Michigan, the original pine, oak and beech forests were stripped by copper mining before the advent of the 20th century, and our current forests (which we still have many) now have a totally different make-up than the original.

Some time ago I wrote a parody of Woody Guthrie's 'This Land is your Land' for a protest of some sort or other (I think it was regarding building a monstrous incinerator in Detroit). So, with apologies to Woody's ghost, here it is:

This land was your land, this land was my land.
But the once great forests are now self-serve islands,
Or tacky strip malls on concrete highways --
This land was paved for you and me.

I look and shivered at the ghastly rivers,
Where the half-dead fish swam with cancerous livers.
Dead ducks and otters in oily waters --
This land betrayed by you and me.

This land was your land, this land was my land,
From the smog in L.A. out to Three-Mile Island,
From Gulf refineries to eerie Erie --
This land a grave for you and me.

Et cetera, et cetera...

*Sniffs*

Where have all the protest songs gone?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

*Sniffs*

Where have all the protest songs gone?

Gone for adverts, every one.

You know, not everything about the American stewardship of land is abysmal. I find the interstate highway system amazing as no matter where I've driven in the northeast, the highway has been surrounded by dense thickets of trees. It is right in the heartland of industrialisation but you'd never know. I've sometimes wondered if it was a deliberate plan to foil any invasions via the interstates--without the signs, you'd never know where you were.

Originally Posted by Lal

Although the Romantics in the UK certainly found plenty of the Sublime in the English landscape - take Wordsworth as just one example. Though to be fair, they probably were unaware of just how delicate a balance between farming and nature had formed the Lakeland Fells and assumed 'God' had just done it all!

All those daffydillies must have been intoxicating. I'd recommend Loch Lomond though myself.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It is a beauty which has not always been associated with the Sublime, another aesthetic quality, which at least in the 18C was regarded as a quality of the kind of environment Laur speaks of, Mount Blanc in the Swiss Alps (which I read as her Alaskan wilderness, neither of which is a man-made environment (except as the oil and gas conglomerates and animal-hunting-by-airplane-advocates have their impact). This is a very different kind of beauty, one not associated with human sub-creation. It is a kind of landscape which often, in my reading of the historical expansion of North America, developes an adversarial relationship between humans and nature--and it is this very adversarial aspect which stimulates such tourist and sports development as heli-skiing and mountain climbing and championship snowmobiling races.

Although the Romantics in the UK certainly found plenty of the Sublime in the English landscape - take Wordsworth as just one example. Though to be fair, they probably were unaware of just how delicate a balance between farming and nature had formed the Lakeland Fells and assumed 'God' had just done it all!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Although the Romantics in the UK certainly found plenty of the Sublime in the English landscape - take Wordsworth as just one example. Though to be fair, they probably were unaware of just how delicate a balance between farming and nature had formed the Lakeland Fells and assumed 'God' had just done it all!

And what a difference comparing Wordsworth's placid vistas of the Lake District to Dickens' nightmarish vision of sooty and abysmal London.

[Lindale]

No offense to Wordsworth or any of the Romantics or anybody else, but I agree with Rumil and his "gentlehobbit" view of Frodo, Bilbo, Pippin and Merry. If you really look at it with even just the slightest Marxist eye, the ones who do talk in Tolkien's works are the high-born, whatever your term for them, with very few exceptions like Sam (who ended up as Mayor of the Shire anyway) and Voronwe (who was of the Noldor, but not exactly the nobility in the same way Gwindor was).

During one of my classes in English literature someone (not your poor little Lindale!) asked if any of the Romantics of England did experience what we may consider poverty. Did Wordsworth or Coleridge or any other of their sort work with their hands? The Romanticism in England, after all, did spring, from among others, a sort of dissent in the Industrial Revolution. And they're Romantics. They were young, geniuses in their own right, but they were young.

Somehow I can argue that only those from the middle class up can be Romantics; you never (or at least, you almost never do, or Aristotle never did see) find the working class happily philosophizing while working or about their work. And among the conservative middle class, which exists in some societies still, like mine, those who have a bit of the Romantics lose it or at least manage to repress it before the "real world" sinks in. Or, after college or a few years after college.

Marx was Marx because he lived in his own time and space and society. So were the Romantics, and Tolkien.