|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 22 2007, 12:51am
Post #1 of 12
(1689 views)
Shortcut
|
|
**LotR Discussion: The Maps**
|
Can't Post
|
|
There are three maps in The Lord of the Rings:
1. A general map of “The West of Middle-earth”. This is usually printed at the front or back of one volume editions of LotR and also in FotR and TT. Sometimes it is a fold-out. Often it is divided into four parts.
2. A map of “A Part of the Shire”, which appears on one page between the prologue and first chapter.
3. An untitled map of parts of Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor (the field of action for the story’s climax). This appears in the back of one-volume editions of LotR, and usually at the front of RotK. For elevations, it shows rough topographic contours rather than drawings of hills and mountains.
Which do you like most and least?
When do you refer to the maps?
What are some names on the maps that don’t appear in the story?
Mike Foster writes here that “All good books should have maps”. Do you agree?
How does the purpose of these maps differ from what you seek from something like Mapquest?
This unused audio commentary for FotR by Howard Zinn (with Noam Chomsky) – is it helpful in its discussion of difficulties with the map?
And observe the map device here — how the map is itself completely Gondor-centric. Rohan and Gondor are treated as though they are the literal center of Middle-earth. Obviously this is because they have men living there. What of places such as Anfalas and Forlindon or Near Harad? One never really hears anything about places like that. And this so-called map casually reveals other places — the Lost Realm, the Northern Waste (lost to whom? wasted how? I ask) — but tells us nothing about them. It is as though the people who live in these places are despicable, and unworthy of mention. Who is producing this tale? What is their agenda? What are their interests and how are those interests being served by this portrayal? Questions we need to ask repeatedly.
Here’s another stray comment on Tolkien’s maps, from Michael Drout’s essay, “Towards a Better Tolkien Criticism”, in Reading The Lord of the Rings, where discussing the limits of discerning authorial intent, he writes:
What about the Map of Middle-earth, drawn by Christopher Tolkien at his father’s direction? Are we really to ascribe every wiggle of every river and the precise shape of the coastline to the god-like presence of J.R.R. Tolkien, or should Christopher Tolkien be credited (and what does such crdit do the interpretation of the ‘text’ of the Map)? From a cultural-production point of view, we can always follow the money, and note that the words and the map are owned by the Tolkien Estate… [p. 23]
Actually, in many editions dating back to 1954, the maps include a “CJRT” or “CT” monogram. In some editions since 1994, Christopher Tolkien’s maps of Middle-earth and of Gondor have been redrawn by Stephen Raw to make them easier to reproduce. What else would you note in response to Drout’s comments?
TORN’s own Arquen wrote the entry on maps for the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, concluding in part, that Tolkien’s “map allows the entire story to be recalled at a glance, producing a rich tapestry of associations” – do you agree? (For reference, here are the posts in Arquen’s 2006 discussion of her entry: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
Milady
Ossiriand
Oct 22 2007, 1:41am
Post #2 of 12
(1220 views)
Shortcut
|
I myself never liked the general "The West of Middle-earth" map; I never felt it was detailed enough. The map of the Shire was always my favorite, because even though the Shire is a major setting for a good amount of the story, I never really felt like we learned enough about its layout.
I used to refer to the maps much more often than I do now, but I still use them whenever I'm not too clear on something. A few years ago as a present I got an atlas of Middle-earth.
All good books should indeed have maps. It's much more confusing when major characters are going on a journey and you don't have a good map for reference, especially if the story never really describes the layout of the fictional world.
Mapquest tells you where and when to go, and doesn't exactly give you a real map, but most books have clear detailed descriptive maps that don't tell you how far(or if they do, it's kind of fuzzy) you're going. Book maps are mainly there to help readers keep up with the story.
Middle-Earth stands on the brink of destruction.
|
|
|
Beren IV
Mithlond
Oct 22 2007, 1:51am
Post #3 of 12
(1216 views)
Shortcut
|
The maps make the world feel more real, make me want to explore them. I actually think the maps are quite detailed, although what I don't know is what the boundaries of different types of terrain are on the maps. For example, it is clear that a lot more of Middle Earth is forested than is depicted on those maps, so the forests on those maps must refer to particularly dense, virgin, or otherwise noteworthy forests.
The maps do have a nice wildernessy feel to them, though. Peoples have certain lands that they inhabit and lay claim to, but not every piece of land is realisitically claimed by somebody, and some portions of land are relistically claimed by multiple peoples. It's not like today with national borders set by treaties using lat and lon to make the boundaries. Ithilien is basically a no man's land, for instance, and at the same time the Shire is effectively a province of Lindon, at least as far as the Elves are concerned.
Once a paleontologist, now a botanist, will be a paleobotanist
|
|
|
Kimi
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Oct 22 2007, 4:49am
Post #4 of 12
(1201 views)
Shortcut
|
I remember being somewhat vexed during my long-ago first reading of LOTR when I encountered that map on starting ROTK. I could have done with it when reading Book IV!
I love the maps, and am inclined to look at them just for the sake of looking at them. I like the first and third ones best, as they show the most detail.
As an author who has not included a map in her works, I obviously don't entirely agree with Mike Foster's statement (which I suspect is somewhat tongue-in-cheek - of course cookbooks should have maps!). Ever Since Tolkien, maps have been more or less de rigeur for fantasy books, but I don't believe they're always necessary, or even particularly useful, for books in other genres.
Maps help give a work a sense of being in a "real" world. They work with such things as consistent and convincing descriptions in helping the reader towards a willing sense of disbelief; work with, rather than replace any need for.
  
Promises to Keep: a novel set in 19th Century New Zealand.
The Passing of Mistress Rose
Do we find happiness so often that we should turn it off the box when it happens to sit there?
- A Room With a View
|
|
|
Kdgard
Nevrast
Oct 22 2007, 5:43am
Post #5 of 12
(1196 views)
Shortcut
|
I would pick the map of the Shire as my favorite, mainly because the Shire and Rivendell are the two places I would most like to visit. I totally agree that all good books should have maps! They are so helpful when it comes to keeping track of things and understanding the story. I am not blessed with a photographic memory and I can't remember the layout of things as described in the text. It's very nice, and helpful, to be able to look at the maps and see where Isengard is in relationship to Rohan, and Rivendell and Minas Tirith. It's also fun just to be able to visually trace the journey of the hobbits and the Fellowship on the maps!
Kdgard
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Oct 22 2007, 10:54am
Post #6 of 12
(1208 views)
Shortcut
|
I long ago lost the map I ripped out of FOTR (ouch, I know), but the map in the back of my TT and ROTK are both signed "CJRT" by the compass rose.
My map in the back of ROTK (the detailed map of Gondor and part of Rohan and Mordor) is folded in half horizontally, then has four vertical folds, resulting in five uneven rectangles that enable the map to be tucked into the book. The map in the back of TT (the same map that was in FOTR) only has three vertical folds, resulting in four even rectangles that can be tucked into the book.
I have never read the book without looking at the map. Earlier readings called for more frequent map-reading, but I still get it out now and then. Even after all that map-reading, though, I still get lost when you all discuss things like the direction the company was travelling and the position of the sun, etc.
I did have the hardest time, when I was really young, orienting myself to having the ocean on the WEST coast on this map, because I grew up on the EAST coast of the US and the ocean was always THAT WAY (to the right, as I looked at the map). Actually, paying attention to the ME map made understanding my own real world's maps a tad easier. A little plus.
Although sometimes when I look at a map of Europe, I see the ME map there instead.
Mike Foster writes here that “All good books should have maps”. Do you agree?
I don't know about "all". I know I enjoy having a map in a book. Even some of the modern mysteries I read have maps in them, showing the streets things happened on, etc. I love that, but I'm not sure why, exactly, I love that.
This unused audio commentary for FotR by Howard Zinn (with Noam Chomsky) – is it helpful in its discussion of difficulties with the map?
What an interesting link! Hah. I have to go back and read at more length. However, tongue out of cheek, those lands there on the borders--indicated only with names that we never have explained to us and are only occasionally referred to--I love those lands being there on the border of our story. Just as I long to know more about Dol Amroth, when I read the brief descriptions of Prince Imrahil and his Knights, I long to know more about what that arrow at the end of the Harad Road is pointing to.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love."
~~~Reinhold Niebuhr
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 22 2007, 8:50pm
Post #7 of 12
(1203 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The map's the thing wherein we'll catch the conscience of the Ring
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Mike Foster writes here that “All good books should have maps”. Do you agree?
Robert Louis Stevenson certainly did. In fact (even allowing for Tolkien's own dislike of Stevenson), don't you think the following almost sounds as if it could have been written by Tolkien himself? Okay, maybe it's just a bit more florid, but still:
On one of these occasions, I made the map of an island; it was elaborately and (I thought) beautifully coloured; the shape of it took my fancy beyond expression; it contained harbours that pleased me like sonnets; and with the unconsciousness of the predestined, I ticketed my performance 'Treasure Island.' I am told there are people who do not care for maps, and find it hard to believe. The names, the shapes of the woodlands, the courses of the roads and rivers, the prehistoric footsteps of man still distinctly traceable up hill and down dale, the mills and the ruins, the ponds and the ferries, perhaps the STANDING STONE or the DRUIDIC CIRCLE on the heath; here is an inexhaustible fund of interest for any man with eyes to see or twopence-worth of imagination to understand with! — from The Art of Writing, Robert Louis Stevenson
I definitely concur. I've always loved the maps. I can't get enough of them. Ditto the Fonstad and Strachey atlases.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
Kirei
Registered User
Oct 23 2007, 12:57am
Post #8 of 12
(1180 views)
Shortcut
|
When I first read the books, I referred to the maps constantly. I kept them bookmarked so that I could flipped to them quickly when I needed clarification. They help define the world that is Middle Earth. They make it a place that we can become familiar with. They help with perspective. It amazes me how much time Tolkien spent on the details of his world. Selfishly I would love to see maps from the "unchartered" territories of Middle Earth. I probably don't refer to the maps as frequently now, but I always spent time looking at them.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Oct 23 2007, 5:58pm
Post #9 of 12
(1181 views)
Shortcut
|
Which do you like most and least?
I love them all, though number three looks funky.
When do you refer to the maps?
All the time. I have a book mark marking them and follow the story’s progress on the map.
What are some names on the maps that don’t appear in the story?
All around the edges.
Mike Foster writes here that “All good books should have maps”. Do you agree?
Yep. I loved those old “KeyHole” murder mysteries that had a map of the murder scene at the front.
How does the purpose of these maps differ from what you seek from something like Mapquest?
You use Mapquest to get where you have to go.
You use Tolkien’s maps to get where you want to go.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Oct 23 2007, 10:22pm
Post #10 of 12
(1179 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I refer to the maps constantly.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They have become like illustrations for me. When I have dreams about LotR, which I often do, the maps are frequently superimposed on the landscape of the dream. The landscape is condensed, and I can see for hundreds of miles, just as if I were looking at a map.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chance Meeting at Rivendell: a Tolkien Fanfic
and some other stuff I wrote...
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape." --Terry Pratchett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Riel
Lindon
Oct 24 2007, 2:07pm
Post #11 of 12
(1163 views)
Shortcut
|
I use them all the time when i'm reading the story...i think it's fun to look at the maps, and trace the Fellowship's journey through Middle Earth. whenever they arrive at a new place, i almost always refer to the map just to get a look at the surroundings, where they just came from, how much farther they have to go, etc. it's great! i also agree that having the maps helps add to the "reality" of ME.
of course i agree somewhat with his statement that "all good books should have maps." but at the same time, maps are not right for EVERY book. like kimi said, why should cookbooks have maps?  lol
Riel
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
~Galadriel
(This post was edited by Riel on Oct 24 2007, 2:08pm)
|
|
|
dorwinion
Registered User
Oct 25 2007, 2:57am
Post #12 of 12
(1176 views)
Shortcut
|
In my earlier readings I needed the maps but it was annoying to have to pull them out of the back of the book and not be able to have them open as I read-especially the first time when I did want to follow the story on the map but I did not want to stop reading for any reason. Having the geography of Middle Earth to match the history I was reading made the world more real. When I bought my copies - secondhand, I discovered the previous owner had ripped out the maps and I was very unhappy. Now, I have the Atlas of Middle Earth within reach as I read. I am a person who can stop to look for one little detail on a map and return to the book several hours later so I strongly agree that books with maps are better.
|
|
|
|
|
