Approaching the lore of Middle-earth

[Tolwen]

I am opening this thread due to

I 100% agree with your analytic framework, and those of us who are less expert in the texts really appreciate the effort those of you who are put into both research and the dissemination. Other Minds/Hands are invaluable.

Thanks for that. It is really appreciated to hear it, as feedback is indeed scarce and so every comment (and of course especially a positive one) is highly appreciated

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was pretending to set in stone my opinion, I'm merely offering my point of view.

Thank you for saying this. I think one of my frustrations is that in these discussions I often feel like those with more knowledge of the texts are "pulling rank", suggesting that their interpretations are more valid by dint of more time spent pondering the questions. I don't think most participants in this forum are here to have Truth handed down to them, they are here to discuss something they love. It is one thing to pull out an obscure passage that may shed some light on a discussion (or, in the parlance of another thread, add to the constraints of this meta-game), but it is another thing to claim...or at least to convey an impression...of authority on its interpretation. Doing so suggests that others, even presented all the same evidence, are not as qualified to interpret.

It is really good to read that, as it helps to prevent misunderstandings and different perceptions and in the end make posting and exchange here more enjoyable.

It is quite ironic that frustration can run in both directions: First the one you describe above as experienced by someone with lesser lore feeling as being "pulled rank" or schoolmasterly treated by those with deeper knowledge.
But it can go also the other way round: Someone who has discussed such topics for many years and spent considerable time in delving into them (either alone or as part of discussions) presenting the result(s) (perhaps with a short explanation) and then being curtly dealt with as "only one valid interpretation among many". That can easily convey a message of belittlement or vilification for both the approach and the effort invested in it.

I don't think that there's an easy answer or solution to this two-edged sword of discussing and/or presenting the more advanced questions of the lore of Middle-earth. I think tolerance and an outspoken and friendly exchange if something is perceived as not appropriate is the best approach to address it.

Of course no one likes to be handed down the "truth" (and especially without further discussing the matter in a "sink or swim" attitude) - and that holds true for every subject (both here and in real life) imaginable.
And I certainly don't want to be perceived that way. If something sounds that way, I'll be thankful for a hint
The other side of the story is that for every subject that is discussed there are people who are indeed more knowledgeable about it than others. When both groups meet in a forum (either a virtual one like an internet board or in reality in a college or university for example) it is generally accepted that those with lesser knowledge accept most of the stuff conveyed by the "skilled" as given in order to learn more themselves (and later hand it over to the next generation with insights and additions of their own). This does not negate the necessity for a discussion at any rate, but it assumes that those with lesser knowledge deal with the subject in earnest and invest timed and effort to challenge it to advance the knowledge (both general and all the participants' of the discussion). Thus while the "scholar" can be expected to avoid patronizing or condescending postings (in the way of "I know best here and you better believe what I say without discussion"), the "lesser skilled" can be expected to engage in the subject and its reasoning (e.g. reading the text passages, sorting relevant from irrelevant and understanding the contexts etc.) when offering alternative or competing views.
That way a real discussion develops that indeed brings the topic forward and might change old views.
Simply brushing an elaborate argumentation over with a "one interpretation among many" is as helpful in a scholarly debate or discussion as "I'm the scholar here and you better believe what I say" - and both are a sure way to cut the discussion short.

And it is explicitly not necessary to be a scholar or loremaster yourself for participating in such a discussion (that should be obvious, but I want to be very clear that I do not want to promote any kind of elitism or exclusiveness ). If one did, it would only lead to a standstill in the long run.
Being less versed in a subject shall be in no way a barrier to enter such debates (no one was born as a loremaster), but he shall be willing to learn both the methods and the lore itself (as it is then - it might change through his own contributions later) and deal with the subject(s) in earnest

What I do promote and expect from all participants (even if their knowledge is less) in such lore-related discussions is a willingness to devote time and effort in it and address the parts that seem not conclusive or otherwise weak/problematic in a systematic and analytical way.

The scholars (especially those with quite a few years of Middle-earth lore discussions under their belts) might be excused to some extent when they hear some questions over and over again and appear at times (hopefully not too often) a bit curt (e.g. only a short "it is this way") when they have to face it again for the 35th time (especially if the point is more complex to explain). Then all the others should point out that this answer was not so helpful, but also realize that they were perhaps not the first ones asking it

Concerning the question of making things up and/or having Tolkien texts: This holds true especially for those parts where we have textual evidence that can be used for extrapolations. Of course for some subjects the evidence is quite thin and we have to make up a lot ourselves, but the advantage of the mentioned analytical way is that it produces a good body of knowledge which provides a solid base for making up further things

Cheers
Tolwen

[zedturtle]

I will quote myself, from a while back.

And I realize that none of this is news to you, but there is always something new to discover; a reader of the thread might not know. And, of course, this is a wide ranging discussion, with a lot of people participating.

- - - - - -

I'm not trying to instruct anyone per se. It's just that sometimes when folks are talking about something they're familiar with, it can be easy to forget that our words can be somebody's first impression/introduction of a subject.

So I certainly try to be cognisant and understanding of people who are learning more about Tolkien by playing this wonderful game. And I certainly have dived a lot deeper in the last few years, compared to where I was. And, of course, our vectors for discussion are different. For example, it might be interesting to compare what Tolkien did with magic within the framework of Christian theology or compared to the epics that inspired his writing. But those approaches are of limited utility when working out how to fit the game and the source material together (the second more useful than the first... magic appearing in Beowulf or the Kalevala probably would fit somewhere into Middle Earth).

As for your other point, Tolwen, I think that a good way to approach it (in this sort of public forum) is to say something along the lines "Based on my experience/research, I think X is likely true." I don't get very upset when people tell me that they hold a different opinion than me; but being told something is starkly, objectively, true is a harder sell... especially when its coming to the analysis of a work of fiction, especially one that have a lot of figurative language and poetry, and an explicit framing story that tells us that it is a story that is a retelling of events from the past.

[jacksarge]

Some great level headed thoughts from you blokes.
Filling in the blanks, or extrapolating from textual suggestions seems to me a quite subjective art, and I guess each of us will have personal preferences, maybe even world views that will feed into how we do that.
I find it interesting to reflect on one of Tolkien's favoured periods in history- the medieval & early medieval periods. For the earlier period the number of extant texts is limited, with a gradual increase into the later medieval period - the likelihood of new texts being discovered is somewhat unlikely. With Tolkien's imagined history, new texts have been emerging over the years since Tolkien's death thanks to his son's work - and we are left to decide how this fits with what we already "know". One of the big differences between "real" history and Tolkien's fictional history is that we are fortunate to have archaeology- real "stuff" found in the ground that helps to build a more coherent picture. For example, it was once thought that Romanised culture completely collapsed/vanished after Roman troops pulled out of Britain - archaeology tells a different story. Or that Britain was "invaded" by Angles, Jutes & Saxons - archaeology suggests more of a gradual settlement. I guess what I'm saying is that there are no archaeological digs we can do in Tolkien's Middle Earth to confirm what kind of weapons they used in Gondor, or if Hobbits really had clocks. We have a bunch of Tolkien's texts, some more complete than others, some mere jottings in the margin - that's what we get to work with, it will never be exhaustive in terms of our picture of Middle Earth. But we can have fun filling in the "blanks".

[Stormcrow]

but being told something is starkly, objectively, true is a harder sell...

I don't see anyone do 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.

I approach the issue from the side of literary analysis. I am not a Tolkien scholar myself, nor an expert, but I am very familiar with his writings and scholarly discussions of them. To me, the game is subordinate to Tolkien's writings. But to others here, the reverse is true: they start with the game, and pick what they want from Tolkien to support it. This causes clashes as the scholars point out details about Tolkien's work, while the gamers point out details about the game, or what they find most useful for it.

As an example, in the other thread our attention was drawn to Wormtongue, and whether he uses magic on Theoden. I made a poor attempt to explain, from a literary angle, why magic is not required to explain this, but the gamists, who were looking for a more rational explanation (in as much as magic is rational), jumped all over it. I've been trying to keep out of such arguments recently, exactly because of this dichotomy: the gamists don't want a literary understanding of how Tolkien can be added to a game; they want a game to which they can add Tolkien as they see fit from a gaming point of view.

There's nothing wrong with either side. The problem stems from each side not recognizing that the other side is making its case, which will necessarily differ from their side. This isn't a different interpretation of Tolkien, as some have been saying; it's a different priority in understanding Tolkien.

I just wish that people would (a) make clear which side they're coming from, (b) respect the other side, and (c) make their case once and then stop talking for a while. We don't need to convince anyone that we're right.

[Glorelendil]

Dismissing those who disagree as being gamists who can't grasp literary analysis is a GREAT start at goal b) "respect the other side".

I would have fun making reciprocal assessments, but I shall refrain.

[Deadmanwalking]

As an example, in the other thread our attention was drawn to Wormtongue, and whether he uses magic on Theoden. I made a poor attempt to explain, from a literary angle, why magic is not required to explain this, but the gamists, who were looking for a more rational explanation (in as much as magic is rational), jumped all over it. I've been trying to keep out of such arguments recently, exactly because of this dichotomy: the gamists don't want a literary understanding of how Tolkien can be added to a game; they want a game to which they can add Tolkien as they see fit from a gaming point of view.

This explanation really doesn't follow logically at all. As much as, these days, I'm more of a scholar of RPGs than of Tolkien, the first time I was read LotR (as a bedtime story, for the record...my parents are cool) was long before I ever even heard of RPGs, and I read the LotR in its entirety several times before ever playing one.

At no point, in any reading of the scenes involving Wormtongue, did it ever occur to me for a moment that what he was doing was anything other than magic. Ever. He works for a wizard, and does seemingly impossible things...in what universe do you not leap to magic as an explanation there?

Now, whether it was his own magic or something (a talisman perhaps) provided by Saruman seems a reasonable thing to argue if you disbelieve in him having magic personally...but arguing that magic wasn't involved at all is just strange. It's certainly not unreasonable or inherently gamist to think magic was involved, given that I've now asked several random friends, devoid of context, whether they ever considered Wormtongue's influence over Theoden not being magic and gotten a universal response of 'No, that was magic.'

[Glorelendil]

Now, whether it was his own magic or something (a talisman perhaps) provided by Saruman seems a reasonable thing to argue if you disbelieve in him having magic personally

This is exactly how to handle it, I believe. If your interpretation of the texts is that Grima couldn't possibly perform "magic" (because he's not pure Numenorean and magic is only innate, not learned), then you explain it by assuming that Saruman took a direct hand. The talisman, as you suggest, or he found a way to use his Palantir to influence Theoden, or once he visited Theoden and cast the spell...or whatever.

If you prefer a less restrictive interpretation, then you can conclude that Grima performed the 'magic' himself.

Or not...I could see a less restrictive interpretation that still put such magic beyond the ability of one such as Wormtongue. I think I prefer the less restrictive interpretation, but the story that feels best to me is that Saruman planted the magical seed, as it were, and Grima nurtured it via Saruman's non-magical instruction.

And although that analysis ostensibly belongs in the original thread, it is an example of the type of analysis that I believe is valid in this context. There is no objective truth to most of these questions; all that matters is that explanations are consistent, both directly and indirectly. Meaning, as I suggested before, that they not only don't directly contradict the text, but that they don't introduce paradoxes. To take the tongue-in-cheek example of machine guns, our evidence they don't exist is that, if they did, somebody would surely have used them. But it's easy enough to give Grima some magical ability, taught to him by Saruman, without having to then explain why there aren't mannish wizards running around Middle Earth casting fireballs everywhere.

[Jon Hodgson]

Dismissing those who disagree as being gamists who can't grasp literary analysis is a GREAT start at goal b) "respect the other side".

A thread that started so well has already descended into unpleasantness. How sad.

There's just no need to respond in this way. If you think Stormcrow is being reductive in his or her argument then please debate that in an appropriate tone or hit the report button. Sarcasm isn't going to provide a grown up discussion worthy of Tolkien's work.

Equally, Stormcrow, that's quite a provocatively reductive post, that projects a lot of motivation onto people that hold a different position than your own, and whilst I don't think that was specifically intentional, it's more or less bound to up the temperature in an otherwise pleasantly cool-headed thread.

I wonder what the best way would be for you two to get on better? It's 8.24am on a Sunday. I don't want to be moderating people who can't discuss Lord of the Rings without upsetting one another.

[Jon Hodgson]

Unpleasantness aside, I wanted to add what a marvellously well thought out first post, and what a nice thread it has been. More of this please.

[jacksarge]

Some great podcasts from Oxford University about Tolkien and his "Lore" here: http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/tolkien-oxford

Worth a listen.

Michael Drout is also a good listen for his perspectives on Tolkien.