tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post170876576927217015..comments2023-11-07T06:20:12.181-08:00Comments on Tolkien: Medieval and Modern: Between Reality and History in Time, Mythology"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"http://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-21205414553105914222014-06-06T12:04:21.666-07:002014-06-06T12:04:21.666-07:00I think this topic is very interesting and signifi...I think this topic is very interesting and significant, but there are a few things that are worth further consideration. For example, is it accurate, or helpful, to distinguish between “a false history form of fantasy” and “a mythology form of fantasy” (“One might say that Farmer Giles is a false history form of fantasy, while LotR is a mythology form of fantasy”)? Similarly, is there really “a gap between the past we can perceive and the past as it really happened”? It seems to me that the notion that history dissolves into myth speaks about precisely the opposite. It says, when you go back far enough in history, there is no “real” or “unreal.” How would we know the past as it really happened? We have records, but history is often written by the victors, and moreover those records are far from adequate in completely documenting the past as it was lived and breathed. How can we be sure that the past really played out according to the records, if they only ever captured a tiny percentage of the entire picture? Or think about dinosaurs -- we have fossils, and we have theories, but since no one was around when they were around, can our theories ever be more than myths? Even in human history, which is very short compared to the history of the planet, there were periods where very little record remains of the period. Thus the concept of history dissolving into myth: there is no “history” as a concept of “what really happened” if you go back in time far enough. <br /><br />--Jade"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-90005570932587313342014-06-03T20:32:37.127-07:002014-06-03T20:32:37.127-07:00 I agree with you to an extent that trying to plac... I agree with you to an extent that trying to place Middle-Earth over Europe is in a way futile. While one reading his text must recognize his intention of creating a set of Myths for England and thus much of Middle Earth is influenced by Europe and England, it is not like we are going to find Middle Earth, or that Tolkien intended for Middle-Earth to fit on our modern day maps. That being said, Middle-Earth is influenced by Europe, as Tolkien would hope that we realize that Europe has been shaped by Middle Earth. You say the past is the present but displaced in time, Middle Earth is Europe, but displaced in space. The realms of the Greek Gods existed in Greece. Their mythologies were set in the area that they governed. Tolkien is creating a mythology for a country, and thus these myths must be rooted in the land that they tell the story about. <br />Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11921426288179453569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-56495746289299031772014-06-03T13:39:28.581-07:002014-06-03T13:39:28.581-07:00If you have a chance, you might want to read this ...If you have a chance, you might want to read this http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/121-where-on-earth-was-middle-earth. It talks about Middle Earth's location in Europe and what time Lord of the Rings was set relative to us. I'm not sure if mapping Middle Earth on to Europe is "futile" as you say because there are clearly parallels between Middle Earth and Europe and we could learn some pretty interesting things about Middle Earth by looking further into this. Time is another thing that I've been very interested in recently as it pertains to my paper. It seems to me that the inhabitants of Middle Earth fit into a variety of different times in history. Men seem rather Medieval in dress, style of living, and technology. Hobbits, however, seem to fit more into the 17th or 18th century. Other races are harder, if not impossible, to place into a specific time. It seems odd, though, that Medieval and 17th/18th century characters can coexist and the reader not even pick up on the differences (or at least I didn't when I first read the books). In fact, Tolkien's work is probably full of anachronisms if we try to put a specific time on the books (some of the foods alone would put the book at the mid-nineteenth century at the latest). I suppose it's a testament to Tolkien's skill that you don't even notice these things when you read! <br /><br />ECBLiz Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15428583965850895964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-3498832353782735972014-04-24T18:19:19.855-07:002014-04-24T18:19:19.855-07:00I think, that part of your post has vanished somew...I think, that part of your post has vanished somewhere into the ether, it would be good to know how you intended to end your third paragraph. <br /><br />Beyond that, there seems to be something in what you say about the connection between setting a story in a definite place and a definite time. However, I do want to push back a little about your claim, "[the Shire] only evokes [England] or acts as its analogue." Might it be more proper to say that the Shire is England's ancestor? At least as a sort of mythic ancestor in the same sense that many royal dynasties fade into mythic figures [and eventually to Trojan heroes, themselves figures from myth, if we believe many medieval historians] if we trace them back far enough. This, I think, nuances your distinction between Farmer Giles as occurring withing a mythologized primary reality and LotR, occurring within a secondary reality. You're correct that there is a distinction, Giles is certainly more definitively situated - anachronisms notwithstanding - in "our" world, but Tolkien seems to be deliberately blurring the lines a bit, drawing the secondary reality of Middle Earth into our own reality through tantalizing hints and mythic resemblances. I also appreciated your clarification of the "rivers" point you brought up in class, I think it does make your point much more clear. dyingsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087241514388178221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-87391456721859406982014-04-24T17:02:54.094-07:002014-04-24T17:02:54.094-07:00I'd like to raise some complaints with the ass...I'd like to raise some complaints with the assertion that "The stories of Middle-Earth cannot be fit into the history in the same way [as Farmer Giles]." Is that entirely true? First off, Farmer Giles is full of anachronisms, the most notable being the titular characters' blunderbuss. The time period in which Farmer Giles is posited to take place in by this essay (late antiquity to the early middle ages) would make a blunderbuss a completely foreign (in both a time and space sense) item. Furthermore, the appearance of dragons and giants means Farmer Giles is solidly grounded in Faerie, not a "historical" period. This being said, the essay does allow for these anachronisms to be deemed "historical." By stating, quite eloquently, that "History, then, is just an interpretation of the records of the past," Farmer Giles can be asserted to be an interpretation of the past. By allowing that, the tales of Middle-Earth must also be admitted to be "historical" in that they are in some way an interpretation of past events (Tolkien drawing from the historical aura of England and drawing inspiration, however indirect, from previous writers). Of course, saying this raises the question of where history starts and mythology begins. It seems that the two concepts are on the same variable scale, with mythology relying more heavily on interpretation and history relying on...what? I suppose this is my ultimate question to be asked here. Not to go into too much detail but it is inarguable that history per se is inalterably tinged by interpretation (thus "the winner's write the history books" and the occurrence of "revisionist" histories). So really, is there any way to separate mythology from history? Both are interpretive analyses of events that have already happened; can so-called mythology really be said to be more true than historical accounts or even fundamentally different for that matter?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08728495278662024624noreply@blogger.com