Is Tolkien antiurban?

[Siberian]

Warning: long-winded

This is a branch off the Epic Pooh thread concerning Tolkien's allegedly "anti-urban" views. Please keep in mind that I'm not going to talk about Tolkien's own views as a man of his time, I simply don't know enough about the man. Rather, as a reader I'm more interested what I could deduce from the texts (and that's not always a complete representation of author's point of view, as some critics tend to forget). And as a reader, I'm actually of the opposite opinion, that LOTR, at least, is very pro-civilization, a kind where rural life and love of nature can coexist with advanced technology and urban societies. That's what Numenor at its best was and that's what the faithful Numenoreans tried to recreate on the continent.

Don't forget that the original meaning of "civilization" is, indeed, life in the cities. The existence of cities is dependent on agriculture and surplus of food to support citydwellers who could specialize in other professions. Cities were also centers of commerce, the most convenient place to exchange goods and services (including importing more food for large cities). Anyway, my point is that any civilization in history combines both rural and urban areas, and shades between them. All this leads to a complex society with various laws and traditions regarding human conduct and property transfer.

And this, I think, critics and even some fans of JRRT somehow forget. They think that peaceful and nature loving hobbits symbolize rural simpletons who triumph over "urban" Sauron and Saruman (why exactly are they urban? because they live in the mountans and the fortresses? But so do dwarves, the "good guys", and quite industrious, too). Which leads to claims of nostalgia over idealized rural past and condemnation of industry and modern urban life. And it's in itself a bit ironic: why do they think orcs are the sole representation of modern civilization? Are weapons of mass destruction, government control, environmental destruction, ugly architecture, rudeness (?) etc. are the most prominent features of "urban" life and our greatest achievements? Do they equal industry with civilization or seriously think that preindustrial civilizations didn't havesophisticated urban environments with advanced technologies of their own? Do they think that Egyptian pyramides or Roman rodes appeared out of nowhere?

Now, I'm pretty sure Tolkien wasn't particularly happy about modern weapons (after Somme, who could blame him) or environmental destruction of the English countriside (again, quite understandable). There's certainly a nostalgic feeling about the Shire, but not - or not only - because it's rural or even because hobbits love trees and gardening. It has more to do, I think, with the way how Shire is a civilization that is in harmony with its environment. Hobbits are actually, quite civilizied. They're not just "rural". They have farms, but also densely populated towns, and division of labor, and laws and customs (see Bilbo's will), and even letters and their own lore, however limited it is, and even a nominal monarch and elected officials. And the roads and bridges, and armed forces (not really used in peacetime), and even the post office! And they managed to do all this without destroying nature and killing or enslaving each other. The supposedly convervative tory Tolkien actually calls Shire "half republic, half aristocracy". It's really a civilization in miniature, with rural and urban features.

It's important to note that, contrary to Moorcock et al's opinion Tolkien sympathizes with, but doesn't idealize hobbits. They have admirable features, such as peacefulness, courage, resourcefulness, lack of greed and ambition, but they are, for the most part, not interested in knowledge beyond what's needed for everyday life and slow to see or react to change (yes, they're conservative and it's not always good). Besides, the very peace they (and Bree, another self-governed place not unlike the Shire) enjoy is due to the vigilance of the Rangers of which they know nothing (typical). Without it, the Shire hobbits, if survived, would be more like their decadent relative Smeagol's tribe at Anduin (resembling hobbits much, but definitely not civilized the way Shire is).

Ok, I don't know if I have to prove further that our "rural" hobbits can be quite urban (in main features, not details). If not, I'll move on to the rest of Middle-earth after I do some neglected work

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Siberian

They have admirable features, such as peacefulness, courage, resourcefulness, lack of greed and ambition, but they are, for the most part, not interested in knowledge beyond what's needed for everyday life and slow to see or react to change (yes, they're conservative and it's not always good).

Certainly their carefully cultivated ignorance of so many areas would not appeal to Tolkien, a life-long scholar, so I think you are right that he did not idealize the Hobbits.

And I agree that Tolkien was not anti-urban or anti-civilization. He preferred the countryside and wanted to preserve it, but that's not the same thing. The things he was adamantly against were rampant industrialization and an increasingly mechanized future. He didn't like big, ugly, smoke-belching factories, and I think he had nightmarish visions of a future where the countryside was completely overtaken by them.

Of course some people equate the advance of civilization with the advance of industry. Tolkien didn't. To him civilization advanced through intellectual pursuits and art. Nevertheless, he saw danger for the artisan who became too enamored of his creations. He feared a society that was too intent on the acquisition of material things.

The Hobbits, of course, were very fond of material things, but he largely mitigated that by making them generous, taking as much pleasure in giving as in receiving. Yet for all his affection for them, he was willing to make them slightly ridiculous. His greatest admiration was reserved for the Elves and for the worldly Men of Numenor and Minias Tirith. The Elves, of course, are in decline by the era of LOTR, and they are severing their ties with Middle Earth, so it would be absurd for them to build cities only to leave them behind, but once there had been the great Elvish city of Gondolin.

[Siberian]

Ok, going further...

So we're out of the nice, orderly, civilized Shire and out the in the big world... and what do we see? Why, the signs (mostly ruins) of the past civilization: bridges, roads, ruins of the northern cities and even the burials of the kings. And it goes on all the way to Mordor: Argonath, Orthanc and the Palantiri, Osgiliath... And even ruins are impressive and give a hint of the former glory. And then, of course, there's Minas Tirith. And it's a thoroughly urban environment, you can't deny it. Yes, it's not modern in the sense that they don't have modern technology, electricity or cars are just details, but the similarities are still there. And Minas Tirith is only a shadow of what the old kingdom (and Numenor) was capable of. Numenor was a highly advanced civilization even by our own standards (think Palantiri). Surviving Numenoreans tried to recreate it in Middle-earth as best as the could and their achievements, especially in construction, were quite impressive. I think that living in Middle-earth by the end of the third age was akin to living in the Dark Times after the fall of Roman Empire with so many artefacts of the past age around you.

Yes, there's nostalgia for the past. However, it's not for some mythical idealized rural past (not until the hobbits come back to Shire, anyway, and even that has more to do with needless destruction of nature and property). No, it's the passing of the great, powerful and yet just kingdom and much of its population. The Rangers are of course, left without home, Gondor is only a shadow of its past glory, elves mourn the diminishing of their chief allies in their struggle with Sauron, and even Gimli the dwarf is sorry to see the decline in the quality of Gondor's buildings. Even hobbits remember something about return of the king as a good thing.

And how does it end? By restoration of the kingdom with all its lands, leading, among other things, to rebuilding cities and revitalization of agriculture and other crafts. Anti-urban indeed. It's Mordor and its allies that are anti-civilization and want to destroy or pervert it while Gandalf and Aragorn want to rebuild it. And it's really on the surface, but some let their preconceived notions prevent them from seeing it.

[j. d. worthington]

They think that peaceful and nature loving hobbits symbolize rural simpletons who triumph over "urban" Sauron and Saruman (why exactly are they urban? because they live in the mountans and the fortresses? But so do dwarves, the "good guys", and quite industrious, too). Which leads to claims of nostalgia over idealized rural past and condemnation of industry and modern urban life. And it's in itself a bit ironic: why do they think orcs are the sole representation of modern civilization? Are weapons of mass destruction, government control, environmental destruction, ugly architecture, rudeness (?) etc. are the most prominent features of "urban" life and our greatest achievements? Do they equal industry with civilization or seriously think that preindustrial civilizations didn't have sophisticated urban environments with advanced technologies of their own? Do they think that Egyptian pyramides or Roman rodes appeared out of nowhere?

I think you've misunderstood the thrust of the argument here. It isn't just the hobbits-vs.-Sauron/Saruman, etc. aspect Moorcock and others are referring to with this argument; it is the entire anti-urban (in the modern rather than scholastic or etymological sense of the term "urban") approach of preferring an idealized, rather bucolic, past -- not the genuine past, with its complexities and nuances, but a truly sentimentalized version of that past -- which they are objecting to. Which makes the entire point about the dwarves and Sauron/Saruman living in the mountains and fortresses, etc., moot.

And no, they certainly don't equate the orcs and the destructive aspects of Sauron and Mordor with the whole of modern civilization (vide Mother London, for one example); that, in fact, is what they are point out as the underlying aspect of Tolkien's tale; and it is here that I'd say you're confusing "civilization" and "urban" (in its modern sense), as well, as the two are not synonymous. A "civilization" can have any number of forms, including cities, megalopolises, towns, villages, or a traditional rural community which has established formal rules and guidelines by which to live -- a civilized culture, in other words; whereas "urban", by definition, is concerned with cities and city life and, in this context, with modern, industrialized cities and the sorts of concerns with which they and their inhabitants are involved. What is being objected to is the nostalgic longing for (as noted in the other thread) a conservative, monarchical, even feudal, type of sociopolitical system rather than the complex realities with which people are faced in the intensely complicated modern city (or its precursors). It is a simplistic view of these cities which ultimately favors the bucolic settings, which lies behind the complaint.

In essence, this is what Moorcock and others are calling "anti-urban". Perhaps "anti-modern" would be a better term, but -- given the continuing trend toward urban over genuinely rural living for the majority of humankind -- the two are, at very least, closely linked.

[Teresa Edgerton]

JD, you are defining the urban environment in very twenty-first century terms. This would not have been the way Tolkien understood it. When LOTR was published, the pace of life in most big cities was very different from what it was to become later. I think he would have been very grieved to see, say, London, as it is now.

But there is a huge middle ground between a bucolic, feudal past and the urban environment as it exists now, and to infer that because Tolkien would not have liked the one he must necessarily have longed for the other would be a gross over-simplification.

It's also a gross over-simplification to define a person's real-life views by what he (or she) puts into a fantasy novel, or even a whole series of such novels. Fiction can never be as complicated as real life. Moreover, if we spent our whole lives writing, our entire output would still only provide glimpses into the enormous landscapes of our subconscious minds.

[Siberian]

[QUOTE=Teresa Edgerton;1281894]Certainly their carefully cultivated ignorance of so many areas would not appeal to Tolkien, a life-long scholar, so I think you are right that he did not idealize the Hobbits.

And I agree that Tolkien was not anti-urban or anti-civilization. He preferred the countryside and wanted to preserve it, but that's not the same thing.

That's what I think, too, but apparently some still read it superficially.

Of course some people equate the advance of civilization with the advance of industry. Tolkien didn't. To him civilization advanced through intellectual pursuits and art. Nevertheless, he saw danger for the artisan who became too enamored of his creations. He feared a society that was too intent on the acquisition of material things.

As evident in the story of the Silmarils or dwarves' greed.

The Elves, of course, are in decline by the era of LOTR, and they are severing their ties with Middle Earth, so it would be absurd for them to build cities only to leave them behind, but once there had been the great Elvish city of Gondolin.

Elves, especially Noldor, certainly loved crafts, construction and engineering, and they had built great cities in Beleriand, especially Gondolin and Nargothrond.

[Boaz]

If I may jump in...

I take the anti-urban argument to be mainly a pro-ecological or a pro-simplicity-of-life argument. I don't entirely agree with them, I believe that Tolkien was warning of the sociological dangers in urban areas. I think the environmental and simple lifestyle arguments arise from a more systemic problem... that people can easily lose respect for each other in large groups.

Middle-earth contained many successful urban areas that had zero to little impact on the local environments. Taniquetil (the home of the Valar and the Vanyar), Tirion (the home of the Noldor), Alqualonde (the home of the Teleri), Menegroth, Gondolin, Nargothrond, Hithlum, Brithombar, Eglarest, Khazad-dum, Ost-in-Edhil, Caras Galadhon and Rivendell just to name a few that had not been named before.

Remember Gimli's words regarding his proposed excavations of Helm's Deep? I don't have the books, so I'll have to paraphrase... "We would not smash and hack. We'd tap and look, tap and look. Somedays we'd do nothing more than one tiny tap with a hammer. We'd cherish these eartly treasures. We'd enhance them, not destroy them."

The very symbol of the House of Isildur, The White Tree, hearkens to the pro-environmentalism of their progenitor. They keep the White Tree in the White City.

These are all examples of living in harmony with nature. Tolkien believed it could be done so I don't think he's anti urban.

Many peoples lived simple lifestyles. The Teleri in their various forms were almost one with the woodlands and without permanent structures. The people of Haleth lived as woodsmen. The Eotheod and the Rohirrim built their entire culture around their herds. The Hobbits loved clean country living. And what about the Druedain? It seems these Woses lived like the Avari... naked under the stars.

Now despite the simplicity of these lifestyles, Tolkien does not elevate them over the Noldor and the Edain/Dunedain.

Also, two people in Minas Tirith are presented as virtuous... Beregond and Ioreth. They lead very simple lives. They respect their fellow men and show reverence for nature.

And one other thing... the Istari did not come preaching the evils of urban living, not even Radagast. In fact, Saruman seemed to love cities and big buildings.

So, I don't think that you can say that Tolkien is anti-urban because he prefers a simpler lifestyle.

What I think Tolkien wanted to say about urban areas is that there becomes an inherent danger, in large cities, that people may become disconnected with the group identity. The strength of a communal purpose is diminished. Losing connection to the group identity then leads to a loss of connection with nature and simplicity. Disconnection with the group means frustration, violence and rebellion. This is what I think Tolkien mislikes about cities.

Middle-earth has a few examples of this disconnection. Some of the most obvious are Feanor, Maeglin, the rise of the immortality club in Numenor, Gollum, and Grima.

Feanor's lust for secret knowledge set him at cross purposes all the residents of Aman. It lead to his death threats against his brother, his denial of the Valar's request, his terrible oath, the rebellion of the Noldor, the kinslaying, the damning of his sons, and ultimately the near annihilation of the Noldor.

Maeglin's lusts and cowardice set him apart from the Gondolindrim. His inability to live with the same rules and purposes as the rest of Turgon's people got them all murdered.

When the nobles of Numenor set about to discover eternal life, they were going directly against the wishes of their founder Elros Tar-Minyatur. He chose humanity and death.... hallmarks of the culture of the Numenoreans. By setting themselves against their own humanity, the King's Men ushered in murder, human sacrifice, and war against the Valar.

Smeagol's demise, it might be argued, was brought about by The Ring. But I say that he murdered Deagol before ever touching The Ring. He already had secret lusts and murder in his heart. His secret ring helped to quickly show that he no longer held his communal bonds sacred.

Grima also had aims and goals that were contrary to those of the rest of the Rohirrim. He was banished for his betrayal of the cultural standards of the Sons of Eorl.

Whether by lust, greed, cowardice, or pride, one person can become at odds with the community's moral compass.

In the above examples, only Gollum came from a simplistic lifestyle. Wormtonge was living in a large city (for the Rohirrim), an anomaly of their lifestyle.

I think Tolkien was warning us that when we do not do proper work alongside our fellows, we begin to lose sight of community. Feanor and Maeglin had their own work projects. The nobles of Numenor and Grima were detached from the shipbuilding and herding of their brothers.

As long as people respected their neighbors, then they lived in peace with each other and with nature... and enjoyed simple lives. Beregond, Ioreth, Ingwe, Olwe, Celebrimbor, Elros, Elrond, Faramir, and Sam are all examples of this. Jesus described the social climate that Tolkien pictured in the Shire... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is borne out when the mob clamors for violence against Lotho. Frodo told them that no hobbit had ever killed another for any reason... and that it would not begin on his watch.

Lotho had lost respect for the ways of hobbit culture. He'd lost respect for the dreams of fellow hobbits. If things had been allowed to continue, Hobbits would have become Orcs. Orcs aren't evil because they live in cities. Orcs are evil because they are murderous rebels. Orcs live in chaos. Chaos is the anti-thesis of civilization. The cure for chaos is caring for each other.

Those are my disjointed thoughts... make of them what you will.

[Siberian]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I think you've misunderstood the thrust of the argument here. It isn't just the hobbits-vs.-Sauron/Saruman, etc. aspect Moorcock and others are referring to with this argument; it is the entire anti-urban (in the modern rather than scholastic or etymological sense of the term "urban")

What is "urban" in the modern sense?

approach of preferring an idealized, rather bucolic, past

I don't see how that's applicable to Tolkien. Yes, it's a mythological past, but just like our own history, it's full of victories and defeats, achievements and disasters. And yes, change. Second age is very different from the first and the forth age will become the age of men, for better or for worse.

And I don't see any idealization: the Noldor, the most advanced house of elves, engineered their own disaster by being greedy, arrogant, short-sighted and, at times, bloodthirsty - or not standing up to prevent injustice (house of Finarfin). Now, if Tolkien idealized the past, Numenor would forever remain the most glorious realm of men. Even hobbits are not idealized, as I've already mentioned. There're even some poor and iliterate hobbits who don't fit in the supposedly idyllic rural life.

Can you say that the Shire is primitive if they actually have many of the features of our own life, from elected officials to post offices? And since many of their traditions were adopted from others, I think we can assume that Arnorians certainly weren't some backwater feudal kingdom either.

-- not the genuine past, with its complexities and nuances, but a truly sentimentalized version of that past -- which they are objecting to. Which makes the entire point about the dwarves and Sauron/Saruman living in the mountains and fortresses, etc., moot.

If you mean that the history of Middle-earth is primitive and staightforward, than I disagree. The characters face the same moral dilemmas as we do, only in the mythological context.

And no, they certainly don't equate the orcs and the destructive aspects of Sauron and Mordor with the whole of modern civilization (vide Mother London, for one example); that, in fact, is what they are point out as the underlying aspect of Tolkien's tale; and it is here that I'd say you're confusing "civilization" and "urban" (in its modern sense), as well, as the two are not synonymous.

A "civilization" can have any number of forms, including cities, megalopolises, towns, villages, or a traditional rural community which has established formal rules and guidelines by which to live -- a civilized culture, in other words; whereas "urban", by definition, is concerned with cities and city life and, in this context, with modern, industrialized cities and the sorts of concerns with which they and their inhabitants are involved.

But the books are set in the preindustrial world. Of course they wouldn't have our technology (although they might have something similar). Now, what happens after the war? Did Aragorn order everyone to go out of the cities and live like hippies? No, one of the first things he does is rebuilding cities and other important features of advanced civilization. Just because they don't have a subway doesn't make them less urban in their general features. Seriously, if you read a historical novel about, say, rebuilding of ancient Babylon (largest city of the time, by the way), would you also think it's an attack on the modern life just because is preindustrial?

What is being objected to is the nostalgic longing for (as noted in the other thread) a conservative, monarchical, even feudal, type of sociopolitical system rather than the complex realities with which people are faced in the intensely complicated modern city (or its precursors). It is a simplistic view of these cities which ultimately favors the bucolic settings, which lies behind the complaint.

Just because LOTR ends with the restoration of the monarchy doesn't mean longing for the feudal times. More like meditation on what a truly great king and realm could be.

In essence, this is what Moorcock and others are calling "anti-urban". Perhaps "anti-modern" would be a better term, but -- given the continuing trend toward urban over genuinely rural living for the majority of humankind -- the two are, at very least, closely linked.

If you study great cities of the ancient world, you'll see that they're more similar to ours than you think. The differences are largely in technolog, number of people and degrees of complexities, and hence superficial. The trend can also be reversed: when Rome stopped received water and food enough for thousands of inhabitants, they quickly left the city (that's why I'm saying that surplus of food from rural areas is crucial for any advanced civlization).

[Patrick Mahon]

Sorry to come to this debate rather late, but I've just read Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories" (1938-9). Although I agree with a lot of the points he makes, there are a number of places within the essay where he demonstrates a distinctly anti-urban, conservative bias. To give one example, he takes several paragraphs to explain why he doesn't like electric street lighting!

So although I don't want to come in on one side or the other, not knowing enough about the details, there is some clear evidence, from Tolkien's own hand, that he was opposed to industrial development. Not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but ...

[Window Bar]

Originally Posted by Patrick Mahon

To give one example, he takes several paragraphs to explain why he doesn't like electric street lighting!

So although I don't want to come in on one side or the other, not knowing enough about the details, there is some clear evidence, from Tolkien's own hand, that he was opposed to industrial development. Not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but ...

I'm with you, Patrick. Although in old age he at last bought an automobile, he carried a pronounced antipathy toward motorcars throughout life.

Tolkien was, in many ways, the perfect fantasist. His comfortable ensconcement at Oxford was made possible via the surplus wealth created by a modern industrial civilization. This is not a criticism of him or his preferences, just one of the ironies that go into the makeup of any interesting human being.

[Clansman]

It is strange how things turn around. The anti-urban bias would now be considered not conservative, but on the more radical fringes of the environmentalist movement, even anarchistic. The modern evils of cities, including the incessant urban sprawl that plagues most of North America (more modern planning is attempting to increase city density, so that agrarian land is not used for more suburbs) would be something that Tolkien hated. However, political conservatives see urban sprawl, in the main, as a good thing, as it creates jobs, tax revenues, and makes money for developers (despite the increased infrastructure costs, increased pollution, decreased green space, etc. and so on).

Tolkien is now a liberal, at least environmentally. Neat.

[Peter Graham]

Although in old age he at last bought an automobile, he carried a pronounced antipathy toward motorcars throughout life.

I understand that he could never do roundabouts (or 'gyratories' as I think they might be called in Canada and possibly the US too) and that he used to thunder straight on to them, regardless of oncoming traffic, shouting "charge them and they scatter!".

Tolkien was, in many ways, the perfect fantasist. His comfortable ensconcement at Oxford was made possible via the surplus wealth created by a modern industrial civilization.

I'd be careful about this. Oxford goes back hundreds of years before the industrial revolution and has always had its fair share of resident Laputans.

But was he anti-urban? I think not. He was certainly pro-coutryside (aren't we all?) but that doesn't mean that he hated or despised cities and I don't think there is anything in LOTR that evidences such a view.

On a personal level, he clearly lamented the loss of the village where he grew up (Sarehole?) which was swallowed up by industrial Birmingham in his later life. This has prompted some to draw parallels between his written recollections of Sarehole and the depiction of Sandyman's mill pre and post Saruman, but that's about as far as it goes.

When LOTR was published, the pace of life in most big cities was very different from what it was to become later. I think he would have been very grieved to see, say, London, as it is now

Do you think? My understanding was that our cities are much cleaner, quiter and more pedestrianised places than they were during our manufacturing heyday. Coming as he did from the outskirts of Birmingham, then the second city of Britain and undoubtedly the greatest manufacturing powerhouse south of the milltowns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, I'm sure that he was only too well aware of the filth, grime, squalor and frenetic activity which fuelled our economy.

Regards,

Peter