Rivendell & Ruins of the North opinion

[Aeglosdir]

There is this quote by Tolkien that was published last year:

But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all.

https://wayneandchristina.wordpress.com ... orrigenda/

[Glorelendil]

Great quote, Aeglosdir, and I think relevant to the larger discussion because it supports the idea of finding reasons to include interesting variations, even if they aren't directly supported by canon. The challenge...and the danger...is of course that we become too enthusiastic in our efforts and spoil the feel of Tolkien's world. Therefore here is another relevant quote:

“No, you do not understand,’ said Gimli. ‘No dwarf could be unmoved by such loveliness. None of Durin’s race would mine those caves for stones or ore, not if diamonds and gold could be got there. Do you cut down groves of blossoming trees in the springtime for firewood? We would tend these glades of flowering stone, not quarry them. With cautious skill, tap by tap – a small chip of rock and no more, perhaps, in a whole anxious day – so we could work, and as the years went by, we should open up new ways, and display far chambers that are still dark, glimpsed only as a void beyond fissures in the rock. And lights, Legolas! We should make lights, such lamps as once shone in Khazad-dûm; and when we wished we would drive away the night that has lain there since the hills were made; and when we desired rest, we would let the night return."

That's the approach I believe we should take to expanding on canon. Not leaving the caves alone because they are perfect as they are, but opening them up...cautiously and carefully...and thereby increasing the wonder.

[Majestic]

Great post, Glorelendil, and I completely agree that such an approach should be the one we should take towards expanding on the canon: with care, but not treating it with such reverence that we lock it away in a vault and never appreciate it's beauty.

And Aeglosdir, that description of TB reminds me of The Watcher (Marvel fans will know what I'm talking about).

[Arthadan]

Great quote and great post indeed.

However, I would advise caution to the Dwarves in the Gleaming Caves. Once you have chipped too much stone there is no way to fix it.

[zedturtle]

Great quote and great post indeed.

However, I would advise caution to the Dwarves in the Gleaming Caves. Once you have chipped too much stone there is no way to fix it.

Arthadan, what do you think of the framing device for the stories?

(For clarity {and I know that you know this, but some folks might not}, I mean the conceit that what we call 'The Source Material' was written down at the end of the Third Age/beginning of the Fourth Age, later amended by others during the Fourth Age, and then was somehow discovered by Tolkien who undertook to translate it into languages and names that would resonate with an English-speaking audience.)

Or, to put it another way, how reliable is the narrator?

[Arthadan]

I think the Middle-earth we all know and love comes from Tolkien's books. It's a dangerous game to think he was inaccurate as use that as an argument to change things because the result could be a Middle-earth we recognise no more, or a version of Middle-earth not compatible with the story told in the books.

There is plenty of room for subcreation in the less known areas such the east lands and Harad, and Cubicle 7 did a superb job populating Wilderland. In fact I think that's a perfect example of how to develop gaming material without contradicting (or questioning the accuracy) of the books. In my opinion, that's the way to follow.

[Eluadin]

I've just finished reading Ruins and the North and i would like to share my thoughts and hear yours about this book and about Rivendell. This is just my opinion, for what is worth.

Thank you for sparking such a thoughtful and fun discussion. I just wanted to take a moment and express that. In the midst of the deep diving both scholarly and "op-eding," its pretty awesome the way this forum engages, most often, in civil discourse. Even when people are really committed to their viewpoints and interpretations.

Regards,
-Eluadin

[zedturtle]

I think the Middle-earth we all know and love comes from Tolkien's books. It's a dangerous game to think he was inaccurate as use that as an argument to change things because the result could be a Middle-earth we recognise no more, or a version of Middle-earth not compatible with the story told in the books.

There is plenty of room for subcreation in the less known areas such the east lands and Harad, and Cubicle 7 did a superb job populating Wilderland. In fact I think that's a perfect example of how to develop gaming material without contradicting (or questioning the accuracy) of the books. In my opinion, that's the way to follow.

Okay, think about it this way: the world that the game gives us is necessarily more (or at least differently) defined than what we see in any particular story in the source material. Wilderland, as detailed in the game materials, is the sort of place that fits the information provided in a certain hobbit's travelogue. In other words, Bilbo may (or may not) have gotten every detail right but his story jives with Wilderland as the game presents it. His story fits, but is not the only one.

Now, of course, the actual process worked in reverse. But it might be most permissive, and best for having gaming options, if we think about it with the game setting coming first and then the singular story coming after.

A silly example forthcoming, when I have the opportunity.

[zedturtle]

Afterwards, the people of Lake-town rewarded the dwarves with a dinner of fish and chips. Bilbo, starved as he was, thought that the plain haddock was the best he had ever had.

Suppose we are writing up a bit about Lake-town and we come across the above passage. Now this might (or might not) be confounding to us... haddock is a salt-water fish, and thus would be very unlikely to be served in Lake-town. Since we've been asked to account for this in our game materials we have a few choices:

• We can assume that the text is literally accurate, and the haddock was served to Bilbo and the dwarves. In an effort to reconcile this with 'common sense' we might insist that this haddock was the only one served ever and there will never be any more haddock to be had in Lake-town.
• We can assume that Bilbo is being an unreliable narrator... maybe he assumed it was haddock, since that's what he's used to back home (the Shire being much closer to salt-water fisheries). But in 'reality' it was a freshwater fish and we explain a bit about his mistake and how he might have made it. Note that we've done some additional world-building here, but our travelogue can stay intact (but not infallible).
• We could take the best of both worlds approach... maybe fish and chips in Lake-town is most often local freshwater fish, but there is 'limited trade with those who fish the distant seas' and thus the dwarves might have been eating the local variety but Bilbo was lucky enough to be served haddock from the south. This preserves the narrative but also expands the world, much like our second option.

A game is not literary analysis. In my opinion, the best what to interpret the text is as permissively as possible... the text shows us examples of what is possible but does not limit other things from being true. You're right, of course, that there is a 'look and feel' aspect to the game which makes certain choices more desirable. But even if the game does have something that does not fit my 'look and feel' of Middle-earth, I can very easily ignore it and carry out with no detriment to myself or others. No such thing as bad-wrong-fun and all that.

[Wbweather]

Or a fourth option, there was a fresh water fish common to the men of Lake-town that was locally referred to as "haddock" and Bilbo just recorded what he was told.

But I get your point.