IronHills Dwarf
November 9th,2005, 03:02 AM
As promised the full article of mine that appeared in the 1st issue of "In Fellowship". And yes I checked my publishing agreement and I'm allowed to do this. ;)
"Arms and Armour in Tolkien, an Argument for Creativity
By Iain Norman
An oft-heard complaint by the older members of the Tolkien community, learned in arms and armour, is that the current crop of fantasy illustrators and writers, who are often heavily influenced by the Peter Jackson film trilogy, do not conform their weaponry and armour to what Tolkien intended when he wrote his epics. They argue for an arms culture very derivative of what they view as the counterparts in our world to Tolkien’s races. For example, the swords of men and elves should be straight-bladed, and there should be very heavy Norse and Celtic influence throughout. This, they argue, is only correct because this is what influenced Tolkien in the first place; thus one can assume that this is what he imagined and therefore intended. I humbly beg to differ with this viewpoint, seeing it as unsubstantiated, and lacking on numerous levels. I do not offer my argument as anything more than an opposing opinion. I can no more argue for the authenticity of my thought in terms of Tolkien purity than any other Tolkien scholar—except in logic. Tolkien should be different for every individual, not to be digested in an absolute form. Firstly, it is entirely flawed to try and represent any viewpoint as Tolkien's without clear, substantiated proof. We have no idea what the good professor intended for all points of his work. This argument of derivatives ignores a key factor in the creative process of Tolkien.
Tolkien’s early work clearly shows a heavy Norse influence. He was quite heavily read in the sagas, and it was natural for this to serve as a jumping off place for his own creative effort; every writer has a pre-established basis to their work. Just as others have since used Tolkien as a basis for their own literary efforts until they create their own lands, Tolkien used the tales he enjoyed reading. However, as is easily seen in the History of Middle-earth series, Tolkien was a great revisionist. He was not a man who imagined a scene in his mind, committed it to paper, and never changed his impression of it. Over time Middle-earth was shaped—not created all in a day. In the beginning, it was extremely derivative of Faery lands. Later, as Tolkien began to shape a more firm structure to his world, he left this realm because he no longer needed it. Simple linguistic changes further re-enforce the opinion that Tolkien was eager to change the common definitions of his races.
The Elves are a perfect example. Elves in traditional folklore were a magical race who could dwell in places ranging from fairy mounds to forests. They are often depicted as being shorter than humans, and related to the fairies, gnomes, and pixies. In fact, in early renditions of Silmarillion texts, Tolkien does not use the word Elf, but rather Gnome. I think it is quite indicative of Tolkien's vision that he broke the standard interpretation of Elves, turning them into tall graceful creatures with a nobleness surpassing mankind, rather than keeping the tricky and mischievous nature of traditional elves. If he broke this standard of lore, why not others? It appears to me that Tolkien was eager to break out of the box of traditional renditions the further he travelled and defined his world. Now before we proceed, I must make it very clear that Tolkien did make parallels between our world and Middle-earth, but conspicuously with the races of Men. Gondor he compared to Venetian culture and to the Egyptians; the Rohirrim were fairly obviously drawn from Saxon and Norse models, but with other races Tolkien was clearly breaking molds. The dwarves were changed from the medieval tradition of clowns and servants into a separate race drawing on the ideas of more traditional folklore, and mixing between other traditional mythical races. He also gave them a dignity they had not traditionally not possessed. The hobbits were a pure invention, but rooted deeply in the traditional stories in of European folklore—merry little people who avoided the big folk when they could. It is interesting to note that the hobbits appeared after Tolkien had already began begun to develop the uniqueness of his elves Elves—his first truly unique race.
The Orcs were an effort to update; the goblins and various mischief-makers of folklore, Tolkien did eventually adapt them into a unique race. We know Tolkien was in the habit of drastically changing his stories to make them more cohesive, but he usually made them more unique and more self-contained in the process. I certainly don't see Tolkien as a straight traditionalist, and I certainly see no reason to believe that in his world of new traditions regarding peoples (for that is what they have become), they would have to confirm visually to strict real world parallels. We must also consider that since Tolkien did not have every detail of his world in concrete form in his mind, how much influence he took from other writers that he frequently talked and shared his work with. Did he listen to their suggestions? Probably to some extent— any author is concerned with being understood. But Tolkien was very eager to offer an alternative and different, store of legend and lore from the traditions he drew from, and he constantly strove not to be taken allegorically. To me these are all signs of a man who did not perceive his world s world's peoples as a strict interpretation of any one culture, or two, or three, but a mixture striving to be unique. I feel we can see this very strongly in Tolkiens artwork.
Much criticism has been brought to bear on the Art Nouveau-influenced approach that the Peter Jackson film trilogy, of The Lord of the Rings, utilized on in their portrayal of the Elves. Most enjoyed it and had had either had a similar vision, or accepted it quite readily. However a certain number of Tolkien fans couldn't stand it. To them it was against not only their own visual imagery, but against Tolkien's. I have struggled to understand their justification for this, yet it all seems to hinge on the issue of Tolkien's influences.
As I have demonstrated above it is not a clear matter of taking Tolkien's non-human races and painting them with the brush of one of our cultures. Tolkien's Elves are otherworldly and do not necessarily take influence from any human race. Probably the largest issue when it comes to the Elves are is their use of curved swords in the trilogy, which, along with the other nature-based forms of their appearance, have quickly been adopted by much of the Tolkien community. Those who oppose this treatment argue for an essentially European rendition of Middle-earth with straight swords. Oddly enough, the curved sword has been used beside straight blades during most of European history. From the kopis of ancient Greece, through the falchion of the Middle-Ages, to the constant use of sabers during the entire period of Rus settlement and the medieval times by Russia and other eastern European countries, along with various weapons of the Byzantine Empire, the curved blade was not an unknown to historical Europe. If we then have cases of curved blades consistently being used in Europe, why the objection to their use in Middle-earth?
It is not logical to criticize them on the grounds of being alien or foreign to European military culture. The Elven armour shown in the film prologue used the same principles of the Roman lorica segmenta for the body, and Greek influence in the helms. If the basic design elements of the elves Elves' battle gear are then traceable to real world items, I am further am at a loss to describe the hostility of some towards it. However I feel that this argument of mine is missing the main point. Yes, we can explain it (if we must) in the terms a certain group of Tolkienites would prefer, but this ignores the creative process. If Tolkien, as I have argued, did not intend his races and world to be a direct parallel to ours, it would seem natural for artists and designers to attempt to evolve a design philosophy based on what Tolkien did write. The nature-based forms often now used for Elven design are rooted in what Tolkien wrote about the Elves, not on his assumed influences. Tolkien was clear that the Elves were connected to nature in a way that humans were not; it was the Elves who gave the trees speech—the Elves who wished to wake up the growing things. Tolkien, in his own artwork, gave his trees Art Nouveau style shapes—long trunks with ball-shaped groupings of leaves. Why, then, should it seem strange for designers to arrive at armour that echoes branches, leaves, and swords like the long limbs of trees?
I will not expound upon the other races, as I find the Elves an excellent example for the issue under discussion, and the principles mentioned apply equally well. Creativity in illustrating Tolkiens world is essential for giving full homage to Tolkien s work. Tolkien truly innovated and broke standards, and artists working within his world should do the same. The artistic effort should attempt to emulate Tolkiens own efforts. However, there are certain instances when Tolkien is quite detailed regarding arms and armour. The winged helms of the Gondorians1 are aptly described in the Tolkien letters. Herugrim, the sword of Théoden2, is also well described. But in general, Tolkien ignored what to the artist or designer are the essential features of weaponry and armour—shape, type, and intended purpose. Some information regarding purpose may be gleaned in a cursory way from the text, but shape (besides such terms as long, which refers more to size than shape anyway) is hardly ever mentioned. Design work is concerned chiefly with shape because we imagine in shapes.
"Arms and Armour in Tolkien, an Argument for Creativity
By Iain Norman
An oft-heard complaint by the older members of the Tolkien community, learned in arms and armour, is that the current crop of fantasy illustrators and writers, who are often heavily influenced by the Peter Jackson film trilogy, do not conform their weaponry and armour to what Tolkien intended when he wrote his epics. They argue for an arms culture very derivative of what they view as the counterparts in our world to Tolkien’s races. For example, the swords of men and elves should be straight-bladed, and there should be very heavy Norse and Celtic influence throughout. This, they argue, is only correct because this is what influenced Tolkien in the first place; thus one can assume that this is what he imagined and therefore intended. I humbly beg to differ with this viewpoint, seeing it as unsubstantiated, and lacking on numerous levels. I do not offer my argument as anything more than an opposing opinion. I can no more argue for the authenticity of my thought in terms of Tolkien purity than any other Tolkien scholar—except in logic. Tolkien should be different for every individual, not to be digested in an absolute form. Firstly, it is entirely flawed to try and represent any viewpoint as Tolkien's without clear, substantiated proof. We have no idea what the good professor intended for all points of his work. This argument of derivatives ignores a key factor in the creative process of Tolkien.
Tolkien’s early work clearly shows a heavy Norse influence. He was quite heavily read in the sagas, and it was natural for this to serve as a jumping off place for his own creative effort; every writer has a pre-established basis to their work. Just as others have since used Tolkien as a basis for their own literary efforts until they create their own lands, Tolkien used the tales he enjoyed reading. However, as is easily seen in the History of Middle-earth series, Tolkien was a great revisionist. He was not a man who imagined a scene in his mind, committed it to paper, and never changed his impression of it. Over time Middle-earth was shaped—not created all in a day. In the beginning, it was extremely derivative of Faery lands. Later, as Tolkien began to shape a more firm structure to his world, he left this realm because he no longer needed it. Simple linguistic changes further re-enforce the opinion that Tolkien was eager to change the common definitions of his races.
The Elves are a perfect example. Elves in traditional folklore were a magical race who could dwell in places ranging from fairy mounds to forests. They are often depicted as being shorter than humans, and related to the fairies, gnomes, and pixies. In fact, in early renditions of Silmarillion texts, Tolkien does not use the word Elf, but rather Gnome. I think it is quite indicative of Tolkien's vision that he broke the standard interpretation of Elves, turning them into tall graceful creatures with a nobleness surpassing mankind, rather than keeping the tricky and mischievous nature of traditional elves. If he broke this standard of lore, why not others? It appears to me that Tolkien was eager to break out of the box of traditional renditions the further he travelled and defined his world. Now before we proceed, I must make it very clear that Tolkien did make parallels between our world and Middle-earth, but conspicuously with the races of Men. Gondor he compared to Venetian culture and to the Egyptians; the Rohirrim were fairly obviously drawn from Saxon and Norse models, but with other races Tolkien was clearly breaking molds. The dwarves were changed from the medieval tradition of clowns and servants into a separate race drawing on the ideas of more traditional folklore, and mixing between other traditional mythical races. He also gave them a dignity they had not traditionally not possessed. The hobbits were a pure invention, but rooted deeply in the traditional stories in of European folklore—merry little people who avoided the big folk when they could. It is interesting to note that the hobbits appeared after Tolkien had already began begun to develop the uniqueness of his elves Elves—his first truly unique race.
The Orcs were an effort to update; the goblins and various mischief-makers of folklore, Tolkien did eventually adapt them into a unique race. We know Tolkien was in the habit of drastically changing his stories to make them more cohesive, but he usually made them more unique and more self-contained in the process. I certainly don't see Tolkien as a straight traditionalist, and I certainly see no reason to believe that in his world of new traditions regarding peoples (for that is what they have become), they would have to confirm visually to strict real world parallels. We must also consider that since Tolkien did not have every detail of his world in concrete form in his mind, how much influence he took from other writers that he frequently talked and shared his work with. Did he listen to their suggestions? Probably to some extent— any author is concerned with being understood. But Tolkien was very eager to offer an alternative and different, store of legend and lore from the traditions he drew from, and he constantly strove not to be taken allegorically. To me these are all signs of a man who did not perceive his world s world's peoples as a strict interpretation of any one culture, or two, or three, but a mixture striving to be unique. I feel we can see this very strongly in Tolkiens artwork.
Much criticism has been brought to bear on the Art Nouveau-influenced approach that the Peter Jackson film trilogy, of The Lord of the Rings, utilized on in their portrayal of the Elves. Most enjoyed it and had had either had a similar vision, or accepted it quite readily. However a certain number of Tolkien fans couldn't stand it. To them it was against not only their own visual imagery, but against Tolkien's. I have struggled to understand their justification for this, yet it all seems to hinge on the issue of Tolkien's influences.
As I have demonstrated above it is not a clear matter of taking Tolkien's non-human races and painting them with the brush of one of our cultures. Tolkien's Elves are otherworldly and do not necessarily take influence from any human race. Probably the largest issue when it comes to the Elves are is their use of curved swords in the trilogy, which, along with the other nature-based forms of their appearance, have quickly been adopted by much of the Tolkien community. Those who oppose this treatment argue for an essentially European rendition of Middle-earth with straight swords. Oddly enough, the curved sword has been used beside straight blades during most of European history. From the kopis of ancient Greece, through the falchion of the Middle-Ages, to the constant use of sabers during the entire period of Rus settlement and the medieval times by Russia and other eastern European countries, along with various weapons of the Byzantine Empire, the curved blade was not an unknown to historical Europe. If we then have cases of curved blades consistently being used in Europe, why the objection to their use in Middle-earth?
It is not logical to criticize them on the grounds of being alien or foreign to European military culture. The Elven armour shown in the film prologue used the same principles of the Roman lorica segmenta for the body, and Greek influence in the helms. If the basic design elements of the elves Elves' battle gear are then traceable to real world items, I am further am at a loss to describe the hostility of some towards it. However I feel that this argument of mine is missing the main point. Yes, we can explain it (if we must) in the terms a certain group of Tolkienites would prefer, but this ignores the creative process. If Tolkien, as I have argued, did not intend his races and world to be a direct parallel to ours, it would seem natural for artists and designers to attempt to evolve a design philosophy based on what Tolkien did write. The nature-based forms often now used for Elven design are rooted in what Tolkien wrote about the Elves, not on his assumed influences. Tolkien was clear that the Elves were connected to nature in a way that humans were not; it was the Elves who gave the trees speech—the Elves who wished to wake up the growing things. Tolkien, in his own artwork, gave his trees Art Nouveau style shapes—long trunks with ball-shaped groupings of leaves. Why, then, should it seem strange for designers to arrive at armour that echoes branches, leaves, and swords like the long limbs of trees?
I will not expound upon the other races, as I find the Elves an excellent example for the issue under discussion, and the principles mentioned apply equally well. Creativity in illustrating Tolkiens world is essential for giving full homage to Tolkien s work. Tolkien truly innovated and broke standards, and artists working within his world should do the same. The artistic effort should attempt to emulate Tolkiens own efforts. However, there are certain instances when Tolkien is quite detailed regarding arms and armour. The winged helms of the Gondorians1 are aptly described in the Tolkien letters. Herugrim, the sword of Théoden2, is also well described. But in general, Tolkien ignored what to the artist or designer are the essential features of weaponry and armour—shape, type, and intended purpose. Some information regarding purpose may be gleaned in a cursory way from the text, but shape (besides such terms as long, which refers more to size than shape anyway) is hardly ever mentioned. Design work is concerned chiefly with shape because we imagine in shapes.