Approaching the lore of Middle-earth

[Tolwen]

To further elaborate on the approach I deem appropriate and useful for approaching the lore of Middle-earth, I'll first quote myself (from the other thread), as it is a good introduction into the methodology:

Independent of the actual question it's a good example of how we can approach such topics (i.e. deducting given textual evidence and cross-references with real-worl models). Consistency with the text is an important criterion, but IMO far from being sufficient alone. As the cases where Tolkien actually says "XYZ is that way" (and thus no discussion about it) are in the clear minority, we have to use the evidence that is there and comparative models (see above) to deduct from. And this is all about likelihood, i.e. what is the most probable and likely interpretation given all the parameters that we have.
Accordingly, a most likely interpretation may change if new evidence is made available (or unearthed from texts not considered before. Thus the competing interpretations on a given subject must be be measured according to their likelihood within the given context.

Roughly that's the way knowledge is generated in science and it accepts that there is (mostly) no absolute truth and the "truth" may change if the base upon which it is built changes. In the context of Middle-earth, some interpretations of questions based on the Silmarillion alone (i.e. before other books edited by Christopher became available) were "true", while becoming "false" with the successive availability of the History of Middle-earth (or Unfinished Tales) series.

Now, to elaborate a bit further and detail the approach for delving in the lore of Middle-earth I deem most useful, I generally proceed through these steps in descending order (most relevant and important first). IIRC, a similar one has already been posted by someone else in another thread, so you may find some of that familiar

1. What has been written by Tolkien on the subject? This is then further sub-categorized.
   1. The Lord of the Rings and writings contemporary to that or written after in accordance (even if published only posthumously) with its content bear the highest canonicity.
   2. Then comes The Hobbit (published by Tolkien in his lifetime, but not intended originally for Middle-earth and thus not always fitting well in there).
   3. Third come the other posthumously published works. Here the relevance has to be measured against the compatibility with the design and intent of Arda as outlined in the LotR (thus the Lost Tales generally have a low relevance compared to later writings on the same subject). The relevance of the given quote must always be checked (e.g. when it was written and which development stage it is and whether this is compatible with the developmental stage of the LotR).
2. What do we have as fitting real-world models/ideas? This can and should draw from contemporary (or nearby) eras that Tolkien used himself (e.g. the Anglo-Saxon model for the Rohirrim offers a tie-in for other cultures in the imagined world) or alluded to in commentaries (e.g. his Letters). It also includes real-world writings like the Beowulf, Kalevala or Völuspa or fiction like the House of the Wolfings which inspired Tolkien as well.
3. What has been written on the subject by RPG authors in their supplements and what are your own ideas? Existing RPG supplements (of whatever game line) will be compared and measured against the results of the first two points and either be accepted as fitting (perhaps with modifications - big or small) or rejected as not having a sufficiently solid base. Similarly, your own ideas are subjected to the same standard and with the same principles.
4. Write your final conclusions on the subject once the process from the previous points has been finished. Ideally, this will result in something imaginative that both adds further detail to the imaginary world and in the same instant is based as far as possible on the original source and methodology.

I am aware that these priorities are not everyone's (given the forum I'm writing this in), but IMHO they represent the best approach when the lore of Middle-earth is the focus of the subject and not the canon of a given game line.

Cheers
Tolwen

[kimbo]

thank you for this thread, I hope it will serve to temper the very fruitful discussions on this forum.

I too appreciate open discussion from those of greater Tolkien scholarship or TOR experience.

by the by, I was wondering if anyone considers viewing the source texts from an angle of unreliable narrator/witness?

[Rich H]

by the by, I was wondering if anyone considers viewing the source texts from an angle of unreliable narrator/witness?

... Yeah, that often gets considered and is a very good way of explaining inconsistencies and when you do want to deviate in some way.

[Rich H]

I am aware that these priorities are not everyone's (given the forum I'm writing this in), but IMHO they represent the best approach when the lore of Middle-earth is the focus of the subject and not the canon of a given game line.

Not to dismiss your other points, because I'm not, but I think that's the most important point you make in your post.

At the end of the day, we're all here as guests of Cubicle 7 who publish a role-playing game set in Middle Earth.

[Tolwen]

by the by, I was wondering if anyone considers viewing the source texts from an angle of unreliable narrator/witness?

As Rich mentioned, it can be a useful tool for a number of instances, but it is a very double-edged one as well. If applied consequently throughout, you could turn the whole tale of The Lord of the Rings upside down by interpreting it as a reactionary victour's historiography who vilify the attempts of a reformist coalition to develop a backward-oriented society towards a modern society and political system

That is a bit extreme as an example but is useful to illustrate the point.

So, while being useful indeed on occasion, you have to carefully observe who might be an unreliable source in the text and whether he is likely to have better knowledge or not. If not used very carefully, it is likely to become an extremely slippery slope downwards to the level of the example above.

Cheers
Tolwen

[poosticks7]

Here is an example of the sort of head scratching that can come about from analysing the texts. (Although I do not consider myself a Tolkien scholar, I just know some stuff).

As far as I am aware, nowhere in the texts does Tolkien say that the Variags of Khand are of the race of men. But everyone assumes that they are because he doesn't say otherwise.

[Tolwen]

As far as I am aware, nowhere in the texts does Tolkien say that the Variags of Khand are of the race of men. But everyone assumes that they are because he doesn't say otherwise.

That's a good point. As you say, indeed everyone (both in the literary context and in RPG's - begining with MERP) is assumes they are a race or culture of men.
A very slight hint towards this (but only very slight ) is that Tolkien uses this term as a given, while if he refers to non-human creatures on other occasions, he also describes them in some way that makes their non-human nature clear. In addition, he refers to a land that is labelled on the map, further suggesting a human culture. As something similar (a non-human description of some sort) is lacking for the Variags, and we have a geographical reference, it can be supposed that he means humans. That may be the reason why everyone does so.

Cheers
Tolwen

[Glorelendil]

First, apologies. I know I promised to not get sucked into that.

Back on topic, I thought a lot last night about how the goal of analysis might vary, and Tolwen's posts this morning have turned on some more light bulbs for me.

Sometimes in these discussions I think, "Oh, come on, IT'S A MADE-UP WORLD, there is no truth!" But it occurred to me that we rarely discuss what we actually mean by truth/canon/etc., and I suspect the definition varies from poster to poster. (And this might be the point Stormcrow was trying to make. ) For example, in trying to fill in a blank area we might ask:
1) What did Tolkien intend?
2) What would he have intended, if he had thought about it?
3) What fits thematically and literarily?
4) What fits historically? (I.e., the real cultures Tolkien studied and from which much of his writing was derived.)
5) What is the most compelling narrative option?
6) And, finally, what doesn't contradict the text(s)?

For a scholar of Tolkien the author/academic, knowing what he was thinking, or at least deducing what he would have done, might be a more interesting exercise than it is for a..."narrator" (encompassing writers, gamers...even filmmakers.) Others...writers and filmmakers...might be thinking, in effect, "Nope. He had his shot; the rest of the Middle Earth is ours to fill in, as long as we don't contradict him." They will be interested in #'s 3, 5, and 6.

However, I suspect my list is either too short, or going in the wrong direction entirely, because of the primacy of Lord of the Rings in Tolwen's list of sources, especially over the Hobbit. That surprised me. Although the two are of greatly different style, and written years apart, and require some gymnastics of the imagination to mesh together, it wouldn't have occurred to me to resolve contradictions by simply ruling in favor of LotR. Unless you replace the world "Tolkien" in my list with "Lord of the Rings", this preference doesn't seem to fit any of those goals. Certainly choosing Tolkien's own writings selectively helps to eliminate some of the contradictions; but again that points to different "sets of rules" that each of us may be employing.

The other thing I noticed was the absence of non-historical, literary works as source materials. E.g., Beowulf, Völuspá, or House of the Wolfings. The first two might fall under historical sources, not for it's specifics, but for what it tells us about people of that era. But House of the Wolfings is a modern fiction and, other than the author's historical knowledge that leaks through, can't be considered historical. And yet it has a tremendous influence on Tolkien.

[Glorelendil]

By the way, I would also like to respond to this:

There's a perception that when someone doesn't pepper their utterances with "this is just my opinion" and "I think" and the like, that they're somehow saying something that isn't their opinion. EVERYTHING you say is your opinion. This should be taken as read, and leave the wishy-washy qualifiers at the door.

On the surface I agree with this. Adding "In my opinion," as a qualifier before every sentence is just burdensome and makes it harder to follow an argument. But that's the extreme case.

Subtle differences in language convey a lot of meaning and intent. Replacing a key "is" with "could be" changes the tone. Or a "there are no..." at the beginning of a clause with "...seems unlikely" at the end.

Yes, every post is a matter of opinion. But you can tell by the language used whether the writer believes that or not, and whether he/she genuinely values the opinions of others, or is simply trying to instruct. I don't believe writing in the more humble way is wishy-washy; it is respectful.

[Tolwen]

The other thing I noticed was the absence of non-historical, literary works as source materials. E.g., Beowulf, Völuspá, or House of the Wolfings. [...]

A good point. I'll edit my initial post accordingly. I'd rate them on the same level as historical models that Tolkien used.

Cheers
Tolwen