Eastern Europe bad. West good.

On 23 Aug 2004 21:47:06 GMT,
stephen.RemoveThis@nomail.com <stephen.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote:
> Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson.RemoveThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>: "jsberry" <jsberry.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>: news:51431c0.0408230954.d22ce2b@posting.google.com...
>
>:> You can't ignore the similarities to European
>:> geography and history:
>
>: There are deliberate similarities to various cultures... however, I
>: would question many of the connections you make;
>
>:> SOUTHEAST: mountainous, inaccessible, hordes of
>:> enemies, evil religion
>
>: There was an evil religion to the SE of Europe?
>
> Islam could match that description. Who after all were
> the crusades fought against?

I would think that Tolkien's cultural and religious sophistication would be
a little greater than that. If Mordor was to be some sort of proto-Mecca,
then I would expect that the Sauronian religion would in certain key
respects resemble the beliefs of the true believers (particularly the Eldar
and the Numenoreans). Islam is quite clearly an offshoot of Judaism.

We don't know much about Sauronian, other than the fact that Sauron seems to
have held himself up as a god. There is nothing in Islam that would even
resemble this. If what Sauron told the Numenoreans about Melkor was also
part of Sauronian, then basically that's devil worship, and that also is
divergent from Islam.

The simpler explanation is that Mordor is not an allegory for any nation.
As to the East and the South, there will be obvious similarities, because
JRRT did intend those peoples to resemble peoples of such regions that we
know today. The reason, of course, isn't allegorical, but rather part of
the overarching idea that the mythos is the real world in an imaginary time.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca.RemoveThis@hotmail.com

WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.

Tarjei Vagstol <tarjei.vagstol.RemoveThis@nynorsk.no> wrote:
 > hayesmstw.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote:

[Allegory]
  >> And what is Tolkien's definition?

 > I believe this is the central question.

 > When Tolkien declares that LOTR is no allegory, he says that it has no
 > "hidden meaning".

In other words, nothing in LotR is intended to refer *specifically* to
something in the real world.

 > It is not - for instance - a tale about WW2 under
 > the guise of an epic saga. We can safely assume that this is true.

 > However, every text written refers to other texts in some way.

Yes, and LotR refers to a lot of them. But observing how Tolkien takes
ideas from other texts, and trying to draw conclusions about his
opinions (or his characterization) on "real world" issues are two
very different things. The direction of the "information flow" is
different in both cases.

Example: His knowledge of the Anglo-Saxons influenced the Rohirrim,
but that doesn't mean the Rohirrom "are" in any way Anglo-Saxons
(as he was careful to point out in one of the letters), or that
you can say "Tolkien thought this and that about Anglo-Saxons, because
you can observe this in the Rohirrim".

 > What determined the geography of Middle-Earth? Chance is not a likely
 > answer, given his attention to all details.

In fact, chance certainly played some role; for example, we know that
Christopher Tolkien drew the map somewhat inaccurately, and JRR
Tolkien then changed his ideas about the geography to fit the map.

 > It seems to me that Tolkien chose a geography that would seem
 > "natural" to english readers.

But that does not mean one can conclude anything about the *people*
that inhabit certain places in middle-earth, or anything about
Tolkiens opinion (consciously or unconsciously) about them, or
Tolkiens idea what the "english reader" would think "natural".

Tolkien didn't care a lot about "trends" in literature; he wrote
*against* most of them. And, as a historian, his mindset a view of the
world had probably not much in common with the "english reader"
(as you can see by the reaction of many literary critics).

If you had said that Tolkien choose a geography that would made
sense to him as a historian, I would have a lot less reservations.
You can certainly find historic incidents with eastern 'hordes'
invading central Europe, or southern people fighting against
nations "on the latitude of Florence" or "Troy" (letter 294),
or which "resembled 'Egyptians'" (letter 211).

But oversimplifications like "for Tolkien, everything in the West is
Good, and everything in the South and East is Evil, and that is
especially true for his views about all the people there in the real
world, at current times" are rather idiotic (excuse me please).

- Dirk<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->