[Beren IV]

I have not played BfME, and I am not sure I ever will, but some comments recently have brought up regarding it something in my mind. I also do not know if this is fully on-topic or not (or if it should be moved to the Green Dragon).

*

Tolkien, in his writing, left out a lot of detail, and many of the elements of his world are left ambiguous, seemingly quite deliberately. For instance, we do not know how much "magic" there is in his world, but we do know there is some. We know that Arda contains a number of fantastical creatures that do not exist on Earth, and that some of these creatures (Wargs, Great Eagles) can and do occasionally associate with the major races, but again, we do not know how many creatures like this there are or how often the races have them as friends or allies.

I have spoken with a number of other Tolkien scholars, and we have generally come to the agreement that Tolkien deliberately left these elements ambiguous. As we all know, Arda is spoken of in the prologue of LotR as being a prehistory to the reader, that it will one day become a world verymuch like our own (although with a few oddities like the iron age being much earlier and several New World plants in the Old World). As we also know, magic does not exist in our universe, or, if it does, it is so rare that no verifiable case of it has ever been described, and Tolkien wanted to draw a picture of Arda as a more fantastical prehistory to our own, but still believably our own world, with the great artifacts and characters being tied up in destiny rather than having specail powers. Alternatively, Tolkien wanted to write a fantasy, a story set in what he called Farae, a mythical or imaginary world in which what we would call magic is not only real but need not even be that rare. Thus, to allow both interpretations in the same story, Tolkien left it ambiguous: for instance, is Anduril truly a powerful artifact weapon that gives off holy flame when smiting Orcs (as the description in Moria implies, but is not explicit), or is it just destined?

This ambigity has led to what could be considered two schools of thought on how to visualize Tolkien for other media, including fan fiction, movies, computer games, pencil-and-paper RPGs, and so on. In reality, these two camps are really just the endpoints of a spectrum, not discrete entities, although they frequently seem to polarize in discussions. They are:

-The Tolkien Purists (self-named), who are of the opinion that nothing outside of the books
should be included, and therefore remove fantastical elements not explicitly described
in the books;

-The Tolkien Completists (whom I name now), who are of the opinion that Arda is a rich
world with many elements alluded to but not explicitly described in the books, and
therefore add and include fantastical elements not explicitly described in the books.


It is my general observation that most heavy Tolkien readers (those who routinely go beyond The Hobbit and Lotr), seem to be of the Purist venue, or at least, I am a Completist relative to most other people who really enjoy and read a lot of Tolkien. Certainly this appears to be true of the people making The Last Alliance. There is nothing wrong with this, and indeed I myself have come to enjoy multiple different interpretations, some relatively Purist and some relatively Completist (although some of the assumptions of fundamentally Christian theology behind some of it bugs me for various reasons).


This may give some background about the way that I think about Tolkien's world, for instance, trying to envision the characters he never describes (the soldiers' wives that I brought up earlier being a prime example).

General thoughts? Are you a Purist or a Completist (or a moderate)?




(p.s. I am not complaining, as I understand the sentiments. I'm just stating. )

This post has been edited by Beren IV: 28 July 2005 - 11:14 PM

[Caedus]

The problem with approaching this game as a completist, is that you can only complement to the game with ideas that are not inherently part of the stuff Tolkien wrote. Why is that a problem? Well, because I may have really other ideas about adding 'magic' (for example) than someone else. And because this game is not just a 'view' of one person, but a celebration of Arda, it should (in my opinion) not include stuff that are not directly alluded to in the books. You can't defend introducing an object 'X' if someone asks you where you got it from. Because the only answer you can give in this case, is saying that you yourself introduced it. However, if someone asks why Hobbits have no intimidating militairy in the game (which I suspect will be the case), you can easily defend that position by saying: "just read the LotR, and you will see that Hobbits have no army, only a small 'police-force', some guards and hunters". People may like it or not, but the case can be made clear by arguments and references to the text.

Now I don't want to crush the 'Completist' view, because I'm sure it has it's merits and can enrich one's imagination of Arda, but I think it wouldn't work in this approach of presenting the world of Tolkien in a game, because you wouldn't really present his world, but your own if you added things from outside. But that doesn't mean it is wrong to do, it just lies not in the goal of this particular game.

I hope you can follow my reasoning and that you understand that I don't want to push one view before the other.

Anyway, these are good and interesting questions, but I may be a bit biased because of my choice of study at the university (*points at sig*)...

[Enarwaen]

@Beren

we are and will pursue the purist's point of view in the project. of course due to the limitations of a game you need to make some compromises (which is regretable) and you have to do some educated guesswork concerning areas where the Professor isn't just clear enough or areas which are simply missing.
but we are striving *very* hard to remain true to the spirit of the books in such areas - which always leads to extensive discussions in the internal team forums.
but we will *not* under no circumstance start to invent stuff that isn't mentioned in the books, just because it would make Arda more complete (which is an IMO questionable approach). Tolkien inherited us a very rich tapestry - a world that is consistent in itself. and that's what we are trying to depict in TLA.

[Beren IV]

I think you misunderstood me.

I am not asking that we change anything. I am not saying that we should invent more stuff (although, in all honesty, we are, because we have to guess at what some of the Civilizations' military hirearchies are like... the Wainraiders don't only use wagons, I am sure). All I am saying is that there are more than one interpretation, and that is a good thing. TLA is (relatively) Purist. I don't mind at all. The Arda mods that I have made on my own are more Completist. I was just seeing if I could stimulate some interesting thoughts. I hope I haven't offended anybody!

[Enarwaen]

no offense taken - we value the feedback we get from the community very much.

i just stated the general objective that we've decided upon for the project

[Rinion]

I suppose the world needs a balance of both, like with men and women. Logic and creativity.

This post has been edited by Rinion: 16 August 2005 - 01:06 PM

[Ykkrosh]

Quote

Tolkien, in his writing, left out a lot of detail, and many of the elements of his world are left ambiguous, seemingly quite deliberately. [...] This ambigity has led to what could be considered two schools of thought on how to visualize Tolkien for other media, including fan fiction, movies, computer games, pencil-and-paper RPGs, and so on.

It seems like this is somewhat relevant:

Letters 131 said:

[O]nce upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story - the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths [...]
I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

It sounds like Tolkien's original desire was for the "Completist" approach, creating the base for an entire mythology on which others could build new works of art. He does call the idea "Absurd", and I believe he said that Middle Earth was created mainly for himself (rather than attempting a grand mythology to provide what he thought England was lacking, having realised how unlikely success would be) - but that was in 1951; what were his thoughts later, after LOTR had become as popular as it was?

[Beren IV]

Quote

but that was in 1951; what were his thoughts later, after LOTR had become as popular as it was?

After the success of LotR, I would guess he could have published the Silmarillion without any serious difficulty. The fact that he did not implies to me that he felt that either it wasn't ready or it wasn't something he wanted on the table (at least not in the form that he had it). I can understand why, actually: the books that Tolkien published (The Hobbit, LotR), had many of their references to magic and more importantly religion edited (magic, because it has to do with religion) out, to make the books more appealing to a more general audience. Some of the theological assumptions of the Sil can generate problems if you think about them from a practical standpoint.

[Caedus]

Bah, if that's the case then people really need to begin seeing the difference between religion and literature (and fantasy)!

[Beren IV]

Yes, and Tolkien himself to begin with. Having a world in which good must prevail and an all-powerful, all-good God permitting evil to exist because He knows that it will one day thwart itself may make for an excellent religion, but it sort of takes the fun out of not "knowing" what is going to happen for a story. (most of my major problems with Tolkien's legendarium stem from this fact)

[Caedus]

I never read that Eru was all-good...

And which parent would do a better job: the one who let's his child make mistakes to learn from them, or the one that doesn't allow his child to make mistakes?

[Beren IV]

I am extrapolating from the fact that Tolkien was a Catholic and was trying to make his world consistent with his theology.

[Caedus]

I never read he did that. Not explicitly.

[Mithrandil]

Indeed, there is no proof of that, nor is there much connection between the story and the catholic church. There is only a connection for those who seek one.

And indeed you just can't invent your own stuff about Arda and put it into a game. If you start doing that, you'll end up having super magician elves with giant fireballs emerging from their adamantite staff.

[Beren IV]

Tolkien wrote numberous letters regarding his opinions, motivations, and hints about what he thought for his world, and Catholocism is a strong undercurrent in all of them. He wanted at some level to make his world 'consistent' with his own theology (in the later versions of the Sil, in HoMEX-XII), and set up obvious parallels between Ilúvitar and God, Melkor and Lucifer, etc. He also refers to LotR as a fundamentally Christian work (letter 131), as well as justifies his (at the time) Sil.


And I take it that you're a little irked about mainstream pseudo-Tolkienian fantasy?

[Caedus]

While I admit that super magician Elves with adamantite staves that can sling huge fireballs are cool (imo), there are not Tolkien.

Anyway, modding stuff is said to be easy so it can all be added by the people who want to.

[Beren IV]

Quote

While I admit that super magician Elves with adamantite staves that can sling huge fireballs are cool (imo), there are not Tolkien.

True. I do prefer to imagine that some of the Elf Lords can indeed use spells as weapons (in fact, we know they can), but any sort of spell-dueling in Arda is going to be on a level that is more, ah, thoughtful, less brutish, than, say, Dungeon Siege.

[Drashkurz]

Well, I'd say I'm in the Purist camp.

(Is this the shortest answer in the topic so far? )

[Beren IV]

The argument that there probably are Elven lords who could use fire as a weapon runs more or less like this:

We know Gandalf can. Gandalf uses fire as a weapon on at least two occasions, one (which backfires) while he, Bilbo, and Thorin and Co. are in a grove of trees east of the Misty Mountains, and a second time (much more effective) while he is with the Fellowship, being attacked by wolves outside of Moria.

Gandalf, of course, is a Maia, not an Elf, and moreover, he's wearing Narya. However, we also know that there are Elf-lords who have threatened and even defeated Maiar, so we know they have to be quite powerful. Apart from their ability to "uncloak" and assume a spiritual, incorporea, Maiar form, there is no reason to believe that Elves cannot theoretically do things that Maiar can (although Maiar will of course be more powerful as a rule). Narya, meanwhile, was made by Elves, and was worn by an Elf (Cirdan) before he gave it to Gandalf. Thus, if Narya is the source of Gandalf's abilities with fire, then it stands to reason that Cirdan could have used it before Gandalf had it. Either way, at some point in Arda's history, there was an Elf (or more than one) who could probably do things similar to what Gandalf can with fire.

All of this said, of course, Gandalf does not waltz around blowing every bad guy he meets up in a huge fireball. He apparently can, or threatens to, but there are consequences, as evinced by Gandalf's reluctance to start a fire on Caradhras. While it is safe to assume that there have been Elves at least in the past who could do what Gandalf can, I would think it also safe to assume that, like Gandalf, they would not throw their power around lightly.

[Mithrandil]

But Gandalf's ability to use fire probably comes from the fact he is a maia. The Maiar in Middle Earth are refered to as the wizards, and wizards use magic. When Gandalf makes fire, he always uses his staff, the sign of the istari. But, asides of that, Elrond, who has vilya, can clearly control the waters of the bruinen, while Galadriel can call for visions, and make Lothlorien the most beautifull place in Middle Earth. The rings give some power, but not comparable to maiar, I think.