11 ms·

Because this opinion has surfaced a number of times here: Yes, Tolkien did care deeply about the realism of his world. And because he spent his whole life study

by veddox 2y ago

Because this opinion has surfaced a number of times here: Yes, Tolkien did care deeply about the realism of his world. And because he spent his whole life studying pre-modern societies, the societies he creates in Middle Earth do function very realistically. I think there are two reason why many readers miss this: (1) Much of Tolkien's world-building is implicit rather than explicit. He doesn't talk about Aragorn's tax policy because he doesn't need to; Aragorn is recognisably a feudal king and there is a standard way taxes are done a feudal system (i.e. the vassals take care of gathering them). Tolkien has a deep understanding of how such societies function, but much of this comes out indirectly in the story, through the way the characters behave and what they can and cannot do. (2) Pre-modern societies are so deeply different from modern ones (economically, culturally, and socially) that I think many readers stumble across things they find unexpected and dismiss it as "unrealistic fantasy", without understanding that in such a context, this is exactly how one would expect the world to work. For example, the deep devotion and self-sacrificial service Sam shows to Frodo is often discussed in terms of friendship (and it is a great friendship), but one cannot fully understand it unless one also understands it as a (very positive) master-servant relationship. If you want a better understanding of the deeper realism of LotR, I cannot recommend Bret Devereaux' blog highly enough. He is an ancient military historian and has written extensive (but entertaining!) analyses of both LotR and GoT. See here for two samples: https://acoup.blog/2020/05/22/collections-the-battle-of-helms-deep-part-iv-men-of-rohan/ https://acoup.blog/2020/05/22/collections-the-battle-of-helm..., https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-was-game-of-thrones-and-the-middle-ages-part-i/ https://acoup.blog/2019/05/28/new-acquisitions-not-how-it-wa...

justanotherjoe 2y ago
I think the argument about the taxes is that, being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king, like it is being good with a sword doesn't make you a good monarch. For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. Though I don't know much about ME and maybe in that world, the challenges present in the real world don't exist there.
- Svip 2y ago
  > For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. My read has always been that Théoden was still unsure about what to do with Grima after what has been revealed. He is clearly angry at him, but it is also difficult for him to let him go, after he had has been his closest council for so long. When they meet Saruman and Grima at Isengard, Théoden even tries to plead with Grima again. And it doesn't make sense that Théoden is trying to lure Grima, because if he is trying to be cunning, he would well know that Grima would never bother, instead, it reads as Théoden still holding out hope. So yes, it is questionable to send Grima away. And Tolkien isn't exactly subtle about it.
  - veddox 2y ago
    I would rather take it at face value, as a perhaps surprising but nevertheless fitting display of magnanimity and mercy. Theoden has been restored to his right mind and character. The whole thrust of the his character plot (in the books) is that he ends his reign as noble as any of his forbears; freed from the influence of the lies of Saruman, he becomes an exemplary king. And one kingly virtue that Tolkien presents again and again is that of magnanimity to defeated foes: Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum (which Gandalf explicitly praises), the Rohirrim don't kill the Dunlendings, Gandalf doesn't kill Saruman. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."
    - Attrecomet 2y ago
      This magnanimity is also something prized in Earth-medieval kingship, too. Many a revolt against a king ended with the king pardoning the vassals that rose up -- only a king very secure in his throne could depose or even execute rebellious vassals. Of course, it's important that it be a common member of the nobility for this to work consistently. Against commoners, brutality was far less politically costly. And heretics (read: Kathars), who risk the Wrath of God coming over the whole community, are even less worthy of protection.
  - TacticalCoder 2y ago
resource_waste 2y ago
>Tolkien did care deeply about the realism of his world. Nietzsche says that we cannot take this too seriously. An Artist's ideas will never conform to reality and the gaps torture a good artist.
poulpy123 2y ago
The fact that Tolkien did care about the realism of his world doesn't mean that it is perfectly realist or perfectly coherent. I don't expect a writer to have a so perfect world building that you can analyse all parts and find it coherent and with real world counterparts
jameshart 2y ago
Aragorn is not a ‘feudal king’, he is a king of legend. Tolkien was trying to write a mythology - it’s meant to be a mythological past for our actual world. It isn’t set in the medieval era of our world though, it’s meant to be timelessly ancient. Myths set in an ancient past often are told with protagonists who seem to come from a more recent time though. Consider Saint George and the Dragon - a 12th century myth about a knight in shining armor who ‘long ago’ fought a dragon. A knight - a saintly one in particular - was a contemporary character but the story was set in the ancient past of legend. Similarly the ancient Greeks told legends about the Trojan wars where characters who resembled their contemporary warriors fought alongside gods. The anachronism is part of the form. The shire isn’t ’medieval’ or ‘feudal’, it’s timelessly rural or * bucolic*. Hobbits are in behavior far more like 19th century farmers than medieval peasantry and that’s appropriate because they are meant to represent a nostalgic persona to an early 20th century audience, even though they are participating in a story that is meant to take place in a nebulous prehistory, before the world changed. The journey in the Lord of the Rings is almost as much a journey back through deeper and deeper legend as it is through space - the hobbits travel from a Napoleonic era Shire, through Renaissance Rivendell, back to a medieval Rohan then classical Gondor, and then into the strictly mythological Mordor.
- richardfontana 2y ago
  > The journey in the Lord of the Rings is almost as much a journey back through deeper and deeper legend as it is through space - the hobbits travel from a Napoleonic era Shire, through Renaissance Rivendell, back to a medieval Rohan then classical Gondor, and then into the strictly mythological Mordor. Very insightful comment. I have read (and thought deeply about) the books countless times over many years but never realized this before.
  - jameshart 2y ago
    I think it’s connected to how Tolkien always connects his ‘fantastical’ elements with the ‘ancient’. The balrog is a primal evil the dwarves released by digging too deep; Tom Bombadil has been alive forever; Fangorn and Mirkwood forest are remnants of the ancient forest that once covered the world; Gollum has been granted long life by the ring making him a remnant of the past that has survived; The elves’ long lives make them a living connection to the past. His mythology is all about people touching and being touched by something primally ancient, so to confront that world requires that kind journey through time.
aidenn0 2y ago
Gondor has arguably more parallels to the Byzantine Empire than to a Western feudal society, so would have been a tax policy, though I suspect that more of the governments wealth would have come through collecting rent on agricultural land owned by the nobility. If we continue the parallels to the Byzantine Empire more than the text can take us, much more important to the merchants than taxes would likely have been the government's involvement in the skilled trades (i.e. guilds) and setting of interest rates.
atombender 2y ago
> he spent his whole life studying pre-modern societies Tolkien was not a historian, but a philologist — professionally, he was a scholar of comparative and historical linguistics — and I think it's a stretch to say that he "studied pre-modern societies" outside the context of their languages. The Lord of the Rings is essentially a re-imagining of pre-historic Britain, and the setting isn't so much informed by history as by mythology. LotR isn't "medieval", which is probably one of the greatest misunderstandings about the book, and one that lead to an unfortunate excess of faux-medieval sword-and-sorcery fantasy literature.
- Attrecomet 2y ago
  Except it very obviously IS a medieval world. Not our Middle Ages, but a world that works very closely like how we understand Middle Ages to work. It's feudal, he understands Anglo-Saxon warfare to an amount surprising in an author of trivial literature, and he very obviously DID make a huge effort to make many details correct either in the "how we understand the past" way or to frame them in a way that is understandable for the people who read Beowulf and similar myths.
- IIsi50MHz 2y ago
  Vague memories here, but I think Tolkien is said to have built his stories primarily as background for his constructed languages, because he believed that a language cannot be created in isolation without seeming hopelessly artificial and shallow.

by veddox 2y ago

justanotherjoe 2y ago

I think the argument about the taxes is that, being a wholesome person is largely orthogonal to being a good king, like it is being good with a sword doesn't make you a good monarch. For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. Though I don't know much about ME and maybe in that world, the challenges present in the real world don't exist there.

Svip 2y ago
> For example, letting Grima leave edoras because 'enough blood has been spilled' is really cool, but dubious and questionable. My read has always been that Théoden was still unsure about what to do with Grima after what has been revealed. He is clearly angry at him, but it is also difficult for him to let him go, after he had has been his closest council for so long. When they meet Saruman and Grima at Isengard, Théoden even tries to plead with Grima again. And it doesn't make sense that Théoden is trying to lure Grima, because if he is trying to be cunning, he would well know that Grima would never bother, instead, it reads as Théoden still holding out hope. So yes, it is questionable to send Grima away. And Tolkien isn't exactly subtle about it.
- veddox 2y ago
  I would rather take it at face value, as a perhaps surprising but nevertheless fitting display of magnanimity and mercy. Theoden has been restored to his right mind and character. The whole thrust of the his character plot (in the books) is that he ends his reign as noble as any of his forbears; freed from the influence of the lies of Saruman, he becomes an exemplary king. And one kingly virtue that Tolkien presents again and again is that of magnanimity to defeated foes: Bilbo doesn't kill Gollum (which Gandalf explicitly praises), the Rohirrim don't kill the Dunlendings, Gandalf doesn't kill Saruman. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment."
  - Attrecomet 2y ago
    This magnanimity is also something prized in Earth-medieval kingship, too. Many a revolt against a king ended with the king pardoning the vassals that rose up -- only a king very secure in his throne could depose or even execute rebellious vassals. Of course, it's important that it be a common member of the nobility for this to work consistently. Against commoners, brutality was far less politically costly. And heretics (read: Kathars), who risk the Wrath of God coming over the whole community, are even less worthy of protection.
- TacticalCoder 2y ago

resource_waste 2y ago

>Tolkien did care deeply about the realism of his world. Nietzsche says that we cannot take this too seriously. An Artist's ideas will never conform to reality and the gaps torture a good artist.

poulpy123 2y ago

The fact that Tolkien did care about the realism of his world doesn't mean that it is perfectly realist or perfectly coherent. I don't expect a writer to have a so perfect world building that you can analyse all parts and find it coherent and with real world counterparts

jameshart 2y ago

Aragorn is not a ‘feudal king’, he is a king of legend. Tolkien was trying to write a mythology - it’s meant to be a mythological past for our actual world. It isn’t set in the medieval era of our world though, it’s meant to be timelessly ancient. Myths set in an ancient past often are told with protagonists who seem to come from a more recent time though. Consider Saint George and the Dragon - a 12th century myth about a knight in shining armor who ‘long ago’ fought a dragon. A knight - a saintly one in particular - was a contemporary character but the story was set in the ancient past of legend. Similarly the ancient Greeks told legends about the Trojan wars where characters who resembled their contemporary warriors fought alongside gods. The anachronism is part of the form. The shire isn’t ’medieval’ or ‘feudal’, it’s timelessly rural or * bucolic*. Hobbits are in behavior far more like 19th century farmers than medieval peasantry and that’s appropriate because they are meant to represent a nostalgic persona to an early 20th century audience, even though they are participating in a story that is meant to take place in a nebulous prehistory, before the world changed. The journey in the Lord of the Rings is almost as much a journey back through deeper and deeper legend as it is through space - the hobbits travel from a Napoleonic era Shire, through Renaissance Rivendell, back to a medieval Rohan then classical Gondor, and then into the strictly mythological Mordor.

richardfontana 2y ago
> The journey in the Lord of the Rings is almost as much a journey back through deeper and deeper legend as it is through space - the hobbits travel from a Napoleonic era Shire, through Renaissance Rivendell, back to a medieval Rohan then classical Gondor, and then into the strictly mythological Mordor. Very insightful comment. I have read (and thought deeply about) the books countless times over many years but never realized this before.
- jameshart 2y ago
  I think it’s connected to how Tolkien always connects his ‘fantastical’ elements with the ‘ancient’. The balrog is a primal evil the dwarves released by digging too deep; Tom Bombadil has been alive forever; Fangorn and Mirkwood forest are remnants of the ancient forest that once covered the world; Gollum has been granted long life by the ring making him a remnant of the past that has survived; The elves’ long lives make them a living connection to the past. His mythology is all about people touching and being touched by something primally ancient, so to confront that world requires that kind journey through time.

aidenn0 2y ago

Gondor has arguably more parallels to the Byzantine Empire than to a Western feudal society, so would have been a tax policy, though I suspect that more of the governments wealth would have come through collecting rent on agricultural land owned by the nobility. If we continue the parallels to the Byzantine Empire more than the text can take us, much more important to the merchants than taxes would likely have been the government's involvement in the skilled trades (i.e. guilds) and setting of interest rates.

atombender 2y ago

> he spent his whole life studying pre-modern societies Tolkien was not a historian, but a philologist — professionally, he was a scholar of comparative and historical linguistics — and I think it's a stretch to say that he "studied pre-modern societies" outside the context of their languages. The Lord of the Rings is essentially a re-imagining of pre-historic Britain, and the setting isn't so much informed by history as by mythology. LotR isn't "medieval", which is probably one of the greatest misunderstandings about the book, and one that lead to an unfortunate excess of faux-medieval sword-and-sorcery fantasy literature.

Attrecomet 2y ago
Except it very obviously IS a medieval world. Not our Middle Ages, but a world that works very closely like how we understand Middle Ages to work. It's feudal, he understands Anglo-Saxon warfare to an amount surprising in an author of trivial literature, and he very obviously DID make a huge effort to make many details correct either in the "how we understand the past" way or to frame them in a way that is understandable for the people who read Beowulf and similar myths.
IIsi50MHz 2y ago
Vague memories here, but I think Tolkien is said to have built his stories primarily as background for his constructed languages, because he believed that a language cannot be created in isolation without seeming hopelessly artificial and shallow.