|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
May 23, 5:06pm
Post #76 of 93
(1029 views)
Shortcut
|
|
This kinda proves my ongoing theory that Grond was an inside job. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
May 23, 10:58pm
Post #77 of 93
(1020 views)
Shortcut
|
3. How do you think about the Shire when viewed only through The Hobbit?
For me, even though it wasn't nearly as defined as in LOTR, my sense of it is much the same. The people: stolid, stubborn, narrow-minded (or at least opinionated), and judgmental while being generous, peaceful, hardworking, and sociable. The country or area itself is hard to get a picture of. There's "the hill" and there are the Tooks across the river, but even though it's not described in such detail as in LOTR, I always did get a sense of a very definite place: "the Country of the Hobbits."
4. Do the Shire and its residents seem to have changed between Bilbo's return in The Hobbit and Bilbo's departure in A Long Expected Party? Has the opinion of the "narrator" changed?First question: Not much, I think, but both people and place are far more fully fleshed out, and because of that, more nuanced. Farmer Maggot proves to be brave and formidable, and at the end, so, oddly, does Lobelia (which my spellcheck insists should be "obelisk." Perhaps they should build her one!). The Gaffer seems much more thoughtful and less judgmental of Bilbo than I would have expected from the average hobbit. The economic and social distinctions now have faces and details. It's now somewhat more possible to accept Hobbits that are brave and thoughtful, almost as if the idea of that is being deliberately planted, to lead into how the four hobbits behave as the story progresses. I still find it a surprise when it happens though, with Merry and Pippin anyway. Not so much with Frodo. In fact, although this is much more general, I think this other quote from the prologue you posted is evidence for that in Tolkien's mind: " . . . difficult to daunt or to kill...and they were, perhaps, so unwearyingly fond of good things not least because the could, when put to it, do without, and could survive rough handling by grief, foe, or weather in a way that astonished those who did not know them well and looked no further than their bellies and their well-fed faces."
Second question: Yes, I think somewhat, although the seeds of it were certainly in The Hobbit.
Also, about this comment, just above question 4:
"Frodo, unlike Bilbo, has real friends in the Shire." Actually, it sounds like those young cousins eventually did become Bilbo's friends. But he had to wait a long time for that, and of course it's not at all the same as having friends who are contemporaries and who are not relatives. Interesting that Frodo and Bilbo likely have the same friends, to some extent at least, partly because of the family relationships. And I wonder if it's also partly because is just a little bit different from the average Shire citizen, as in your quote: "to the amazement of sensible folk he is sometimes seen far from home walking in the hills and woods under the starlight" and as you said (I love this): a "predisposition for unseemly adventurous behavior."
"Shire hobbits have been isolated, and protected, in their home, but maintain legends of a darker past. Might their isolationism be defensive, their disdain of "Tookishness" arising from real if unspecific fear?" I think that is likely, even if not operating from conscious memory or deliberately taught history or anything they see in their everyday lives--legends are often more powerful than either of those two things. I also think the "present–day" difficulties they are catching rumors of would certainly add to that, especially if this second thing is true: "The Hobbit never hints that life for hobbits in the Shire had ever been anything but bucolic." Perhaps most Hobbits feel as Frodo did in Shadow of the Past: " . . . there is a firm foothold, even if my feet cannot stand there again."
5. Does The Prologue change how you perceive the Shire? How about narrative style of A Long Expected Party and The Shadow of the Past?
The prologue certainly did when I read it as a child, and then as a teen when I could understand it more fully. And it was a surprise, with all the emphasis on hobbits being averse to adventure, and seemingly focused on comfort and safety beyond every other consideration, in both the hobbit and the first chapter of LOTR.
The Shadow of the Past seemed to me to be an about–face. It was certainly very unexpected the first time but caught me immediately and made me intensely nervous and excited about what was obviously some dangerous and dramatic adventures to come. I think I got more of a change in perspective on Gandalf then I did of the Shire in that chapter. But the story about Smeagol and Deagol did give me something of a different perspective. It was a shock to think that ancient Hobbits seemed a little wilder and unstable, and it was especially a shock to think that one of them could be so evil without any particular provocation, ring or no ring.
(This post was edited by Ethel Duath on May 23, 11:00pm)
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
May 24, 12:04am
Post #78 of 93
(1012 views)
Shortcut
|
It was a shock to think that ancient Hobbits seemed a little wilder and unstable, and it was especially a shock to think that one of them could be so evil without any particular provocation, ring or no ring.
I like the way the Prologue revised the Shire of The Hobbit without undermining the hobbit's love of peace and plenty while offering a darker backstory that prepares the way for much later events in the Shire. I'm going to go back and reread the parts about Smeagol and Deagol as proto-hobbits. I suppose Smeagol helps make Ted Sandyman seem possible, as well as preparing us to accept Bilbo's struggle to part with the Ring the enormity of Frodo's internal battle.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Half-elven
May 24, 1:34am
Post #79 of 93
(1006 views)
Shortcut
|
That's a thought. I had always thought of him (Sandyman) as an aberration, and in a way, I think that still holds true, but maybe not nearly as much as I thought. It's likely there's more of a Hobbit character continuum, with the Gollums and Sackvilles towards the outer edges, maybe.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Lorien
May 24, 6:53am
Post #80 of 93
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
It's getting late in this thread, but I think I'll add still one thing that might be worth mentioning.
In Letter 281 Tolkien is reacting to a proposed blurb for The Hobbit and makes some interesting comments about the hobbit nature:
The Hobbit saga is presented as vera historia, at great pains (which have proved very effective). In that frame the question 'Are you a hobbit?' can only be answered 'No' or 'Yes', according to one's birth. Nobody is a 'hobbit' because he likes a quiet life and abundant food; still less because he has a latent desire for adventure. Hobbits were a breed of which the chief physical mark was their stature; and the chief characteristic of their temper was the almost total eradication of any dormant 'spark', only about one per mil had any trace of it. Bilbo was specially selected by the authority and insight of Gandalf as abnormal: he had a good share of hobbit virtues: shrewd sense, generosity, patience and fortitude, and also a strong 'spark' yet unkindled. The story and its sequel are not about 'types' or the cure of bourgeois smugness by wider experience, but about the achievements of specially graced and gifted individuals
Tolkien doesn't say exactly what this "spark" is, but "adventurousness" might be implied. The "spark" could also be something else though or have wider implications. The hobbits in the Shire (with the exceptions of the Tooks, Fatty Bolger, and Lobelia) were unable to resist Sharkey's regime until the main character hobbits arrived and changed the equation. The lack of "spark" could be the (metaphysical?) reason for this. I'm reminded Gnosticism, which would classify most hobbits as hylics.
Tolkien also refers to the hobbits as a "breed", "Bred by whom?" one might ask based on that word choice. Difficult circumstances that made hiding and stealth more conductive to survival than open combat? Someone wanting to rule over obedient minions, such as Sauron? The origins of the hobbits are shrouded in the mists of history, but it is known that their past contained something that they wanted to forget and that their tales mentioned Mordor in a dark light.
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Lorien
May 24, 11:04am
Post #81 of 93
(992 views)
Shortcut
|
I do not think "Hobbits were a breed" in any way implies that they were "bred" by an individual external force, like livestock or companion animals. Here, "breed" is used as a noun. Depending on context, it may refer to a biologically similar group (poodles are a "breed" of dogs) or to a class of people (gentlemen are a dying "breed") or to a group of people descended from a common ancestor (think lineage or family). Hobbits as a group are a "breed" sharing a common lineage.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Lorien
May 24, 12:06pm
Post #82 of 93
(988 views)
Shortcut
|
To check how Tolkien used the word, I decided to do a text search for "breed" using an electronic version of LotR...
Breed as a noun: 9
Hobbits: 3
Orcs: 6 (on 5 different occasions)
Breed as a verb: 4
Breed peace: 1
Breed war: 1
Breed gold: 2
Breed in a compound word:
Horsebreeders (Orcs speaking of the Rohirrim): 1
I suggest that hobbits and Orcs are connected by blood, so that hobbits could technically be considered a type of (reformed) Orc like how birds are technically dinosaurs. The tracker Orc in Mordor is an example of a similar breed that didn't move to the Shire.
This goes well with my idea of both the hobbits and the Orcs being descendants of the Avari Elves
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 1, 6:37pm
Post #83 of 93
(803 views)
Shortcut
|
|
retrofitting The Hobbit into LotR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Jackson films had helped to lodge the same assumption in my brain!
'The Hunt for the Ring' gives a good run-through of Tolkien's retrofitting - you inspired me to go back for a look. Through torture, Sauron learns both of Baggins and Shire and although he correctly deduces that 'Baggins' must be a creature similar to Gollum, he can't work out where the Shire is - not least because Gollum doesn't accurately know either.
As you say, the geography only firms up for Team Mordor once the Nazgûl interact with Isengard. In Tolkien's inevitably layered drafting, it's Gríma Wormtongue who reveals to the Nazgûl where the shire actually is; which is then changed to Saruman telling the Nazgûl approximately where the Shire lies; which then evolves into the Nazgûl extracting even more geographical and biographical details from Saruman's Dunlending/half-orc agent, who they'd captured near Tharbad.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 2, 2:00pm
Post #84 of 93
(774 views)
Shortcut
|
|
some possibly expected late ramblings
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Congrats oliphant, on your insights and the great thread you've launched! Apologies for not replying sooner; I'm still playing catch-up with the Shire discussions.
As I was enjoying reading through the various points and insights raised in your post and in the ensuing thread, I became more and more interested in the 'retrofitting' that underpins the evolution of Bilbo's (proto-)Shire into Frodo's Shire. And, by proxy, the evolution of the two between The Hobbit and LotR.
Turning to Bilbo's characterisatoin in TH, he's very much a respected member of his community, as established in 'An Unexpected Party'. And in a line that you highlighted and that I hadn't particularly noted in previous readings, the 'respectable' theme is extended more broadly to Bilbo's extended locale, beyond Hobbiton itself - essentially the land that 'becomes' the Shire in LotR: "a wide respectable country inhabited by decent folk...etc" ('Roast Mutton'). An aside: in the edition I had next to me while writing up this post, the text reads as "a wild respectable country" (emphasis mine)! This threw me at first, as 'wild' and 'respectable' are polar opposite themes in TH. Anyway, comparing that edition - Unwin paperback, Reset (New Edition) 1975 - with another I had to hand - Unwin, Reset third paperback edition, 1979 - I could see that 'wild' had been swapped out for 'wide', which makes much more sense. I wonder when the error slipped in and when it was first noticed and corrected by Unwin btw. Does anyone in the Reading Room have earlier or later editions and/or reprints where this can be traced? We could start a little mathom hunt!
Anyway, I definitely digressed there! Bilbo is 'respectable' in this construction, up until that fateful year of III.2941. In contrast, when we first meet Frodo, he's already regarded by some in the community as on the 'queer' side: "he's more than half a Brandybuck, they say" - a non-compliment, along the lines of 'Tookishness' ('A Long-expected party'). And this reputation only accelerates after Bilbo's spectacular departure from the Shire in III.3001: "he at once began to carry on Bilbo's reputation for oddity" ('The Shadow of the Past'). In the same chapter, we get another direct comparison to Bilbo with:
... and more often he wandered by himself, and to the amazement of sensible folk he was sometimes seen far from home walking in the hills and woods under the starlight. Merry and Pippin suspected that he visited the Elves at times, as Bilbo had done.
Bilbo's association with Elves ("and all such folk as ever passed that way") after his return to Bag End was established in TH ('The Last Stage'), and the above quote from 'The Shadow of the Past' is riffing on that. Frodo is, arguably, depicted as a second generation oddball, who starts out 'suspect', as opposed to the "solid and comfortable" Bilbo at the time of the arrival of Thorin & Co. at Bag End.
With this contrast between Bilbo à la 'An Unexpected Party' and Frodo of 'A Long-expected party' vintage in mind, Tolkien's drafts for 'Appendix A' of LotR make for fascinating reading. Curiously, 'The Quest for Erebor' (Unfinished Tales), included an even deeper retrofit than just the construction of the Shire, with its 'new' history and geography. In TH, Bilbo has 'Tookish' potential but he's very much a Baggins at the start of the story, that is to say "solid and comfortable" and seemingly contentedly going to seed. In 'The Quest for Erebor', Gandalf explains not only that Bilbo had Tookish potential as a child but that this in fact was manifesting itself to a degree in adulthood. Before Gandalf engineered the (in)famous Unexpected Party, he was are that:
He [Bilbo] was getting talked about, it seemed. Both his parents had died early for Shire-folk, at about eighty, and he had never married. He was already growing a bit queer, they said, and went off for days by himself. He could be seen talking to strangers, even Dwarves.
Upon further enquiry, Gandalf learns more (to his delight):
They shook their heads in Hobbiton when I asked after him. "Off again," said one hobbit. It was Holman, the gardener, I believe. "Off again. He'll go right off one of these days, if he isn't careful. Why, I asked him where he was going, and when he would be back, and I don't know he says; and then he looks at me queerly. It depends if I meet any, Holman, he says. It's the Elves' New Year tomorrow!
In this rendering of events, Bilbo is already well on the road to being not respectable and it's not the events of III.2941 nor his subsequent and continuous dealings with Elves, Dwarves and a wizard that first cast him in the role of local eccentric. Indeed, the Bilbo outlined in 'The Quest for Erebor' is much closer to the Frodo of 'Long-expected Party' provenance. Discarded, as it was, this would have been quite the character retrofit, alongside the integration of Bag End, Hobbiton, Bywater et al. into the new world called 'the Shire'.
You prompted discussion on the 'Prologue' to LotR, and I have to admit that I read LotR before TH. So, my first experience of reading TH was with the baggage of already having a pretty fleshed out view of the Shire. It probably helps to explain why, prior to reading this thread, I'd assumed 'the Shire' is mentioned in TH, when in fact it's a construct of LotR. Out of curiosity, I inevitably had a poke around HoMe, specifically volume VI, The Return of the Shadow. With LotR bookended by the 'Prologue' and extensive Appendices, each imbued with stylistic runthroughs of people, geography and culture, I wondered whether they were drafted as a package. As far as I can tell though, it appears that Tolkien had long intended there to be a 'Foreword' (as he originally called it) to LotR dedicated to hobbits and the Shire, rather than designing it to be tucked away in an appendix - where, of course, yet more hobbitry can be found as well (especially Appendices C-D).
A final reflection, drawing on my wanderings through 'The Quest for Erebor' as much as TH. As established in 'An Unexpected Party', the surname of Baggins is all but a byword for boring. In a positive, hobbit sense. Bilbo is literally described as "exactly like a second edition of his solid and comfortable father [Bungo]", even if latent Tookish potential for adventurousness was there from his mother, Belladonna's side of the family. What makes a Baggins a Baggins is also described as respectability, based on:
... not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him.
Setting aside the abandoned retrofit of Bilbo's pre-Thorin & Co. character, as per 'The Quest for Erebor', once Bilbo has his adventure, the family name of Baggins isn't, and can't be ever be quite the same again. There are other Bagginses in the Shire, who remain associated with some degree of orthodox respectability after Bilbo's return from adventure, for example Frodo's father, Drogo and aunt Dora. However, starting with Bilbo and then cemented by Frodo, there is somewhat awkwardly a 'new' branch of Bagginses, the Bagginses of Bag End. A hitherto perfect record of 'solid and comfortable' and being able to tell 'what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him' had come to an end :)
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Kimi
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 3, 2:05am
Post #85 of 93
(735 views)
Shortcut
|
I took my most elderly copy of The Hobbit, Third Edition Unwin Books 1966, 19th Impression (1974), from the shelf (it's falling apart from age, so I usually leave it undisturbed), and found it has "a wide respectable country" (emphasis mine).
The Passing of Mistress Rose
My historical novels
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
(This post was edited by Kimi on Jun 3, 2:06am)
|
|
|
Kimi
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 3, 3:28am
Post #86 of 93
(727 views)
Shortcut
|
I checked my Annotated Hobbit. Note 5 in "Roast Mutton" has:
1966 Ball and 1967-HM follow 1966-Longmans/Unwin but have the erroneous reading "wild respectable country" in the first sentence.
The Passing of Mistress Rose
My historical novels
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
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 3, 6:54pm
Post #87 of 93
(686 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for digging this out :)
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jun 5, 11:04am
Post #88 of 93
(583 views)
Shortcut
|
This will have to be a rather hasty reply, but I want to think about and comment on:
'wild' and 'respectable' are polar opposite themes in TH Naturally I'm doing that from the perspective of looking at TH as literature (and children's literature) as is my wont*.
TH has a comical opening in which a lot of the humour is to do with respectable Mr Baggins being invaded by his wild guests. A hasty reviewer at that point might fee they can see already how this will go - Baggins will be the constant butt of jokes about someone respectable blundering around a wild fantasy landscape with their wild friends.
But of course, Tokien doesn't do that. Bilbo emerges as an able member of the expedition, and utlimately its leader at many points. (This parallels Sam's character development in LOTR, but quite likely only by co-incidence.)
So Tolkien can allow or encourage readers both to identify with Bilbo as hero, and to laugh at jokes at his expense. Well done Tolkien.
As folks have already noted Tolkien says Bilbo has a wild (Took) side and a respectable (Baggins) side. And I think that Dwarves most definately have their own kind of respectable side. This is tied up with a Dark Ages or Medieval style concept of honour.
But that too is a way of indicating how one ought to be treated by one's society, and what society ought to expect in return.
So that wild/ respectable dichotimy appears and reappers (or at least can be successfully found as a reading).
TH adventure over though, I think we're supposed to imagine Bilbo settling back into the Shire for a life of more-or-less contented eccentricity. He's not as fully respectable as before but (as already arued) he can get away with that because of his social standing, and he fits society well enough that ood points can be widely-appreciated.
I suppose Bilbo's final escape from respectability (if one wants to see the text that way) comes in LOTR. He comprehensivly burns his boats there - first his behaviour at the Party and then all those passive-aggressively labelled presents! But Tolkien is already layering the wild/respectable Took/Baggins tensions withteh effects of bearin the Ring for so long.
I wonder whether Tolkien's retrofitting more Tookishness into Bilbo is part of looking at TH again from a more adult point of view. As a child reader I don't think it would ever have occurred to me to worry about why exactly Bilbo suddenly decides to go off with the Dwarves. I think I'd have thought the question irrellevant. This is obviously a fantasy story (I might have said), and when the wizard comes to take you on an adventure, then naturally off you go. That's so the story can get going.
That's either a very simple approach to story, or a very sophisticated one.
But maybe Tolkien was later thinking of adult readers and fans who want to see some tension building up in Bilbo's past so that a triggering incident can launch him on his way.
The 'wild' and 'respectable' dichotomy also turns up in CuriousG's thread about the unexpectedly wild pathway through the respectable Shire...
-----
*If you don't have a wont, I recommend getting one. You can make a perfectly satisfactory wont very easily at home - just get a woollen rug (any kind or state of repair provided it is wool) and roll it up. Then ask a friend or relative to keep moving it around the home so that you encounter it regularly. I'd suggest getting as large (wide) a woollen rug as possible. That's because meeting a long felt wont is very satisfying.
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by dernwyn on Jun 5, 4:12pm)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Jun 6, 3:18am
Post #89 of 93
(536 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien also refers to the hobbits as a "breed", "Bred by whom?" one might ask based on that word choice. Difficult circumstances that made hiding and stealth more conductive to survival than open combat? Someone wanting to rule over obedient minions, such as Sauron? The origins of the hobbits are shrouded in the mists of history, but it is known that their past contained something that they wanted to forget and that their tales mentioned Mordor in a dark light.
Tolkien uses the word "breed" because of its Anglo-Saxon roots, as opposed to "species" which is Latin:
Old English bredan "bring (young) to birth, procreate," also "cherish, keep warm," from West Germanic brodjan.
"Breed" as a noun, as in "race, lineage, stock from the same parentage" (originally of animals), 1550s, from breed (v.). Of persons, from 1590s. The meaning "kind, species" is from 1580s.
So there is no indication Tolkien was making a reference to the Hobbits being bred for some malign purpose; in fact, the OE bredan indicates a far softer, motherly sense of the word. And Tolkien often chose words rooted in OE or ME rather than Latin or French variations.
Next.
|
|
|
GreenHillFox
Bree
Jun 6, 11:39am
Post #90 of 93
(502 views)
Shortcut
|
|
About the early history of hobbits
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The origins of the hobbits are shrouded in the mists of history, but it is known that their past contained something that they wanted to forget and that their tales mentioned Mordor in a dark light.
Indeed, there seems to be something dark in the outer edges of the hobbits' collective memory. It makes me curious what JRRT may have had in mind.
There is a reference to this in LotR but it remains quite vague:
That name [= Mordor] the hobbits only knew in legends of the dark past, like a shadow in the background of their memories; but it was ominous and disquieting.
There is another such reference in the prologue of LotR:
Their earliest tales seem to glimpse a time when they dwelt in the upper vales of Anduin, between the eaves of Greenwood the Great and the Misty Mountains. Why they later undertook the hard and perilous crossing of the mountains into Eriador is no longer certain. Their own accounts speak of the multiplying of Men in the land, and of a shadow that fell on the forest, so that it became darkened and its new name was Mirkwood.
I suppose that this refers to Dol Guldur and the coming of the Necromancer there. But in that case, there is no direct relationship with Mordor as a country.
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Lorien
Jun 9, 8:23pm
Post #91 of 93
(352 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien and species, tribe, clan, race, breed
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So I went looking further into how Tolkien talks about categories of living beings.
Tolkien does not mention the word "species" one single time in The Lord of the Rings, so that is simple.
The word "tribe" appears three times total, always referring to sub-categories Orcs. The only usage of "clan" is about the sub-categories of hobbits, but in the context of social organization and having chieftains, so the word is not quite a drop-in replacement for "breed".
As for "race", going through an electronic text and omitting all references to "grace", "trace", "Bracegirdle", "terrace", "embrace", "tracery", "bracelet", "retrace", "brace", "vambrace", "disgrace", and contests of speed, we find 57 separate uses of the word "race" to refer to groups.
To get into detail:
The use of the word "race" for the top-level categories (24 total):
- race (talking about multiple different top-level categories at once, such as Men and Orcs): 10
- mortal race: 1
- race (of the Dwarves, including "Durin's race"): 8
- race (of the hobbits): 2
- race (of the Orcs): 1
- race (of the Elves, including "Elder Race"): 2
- race (of the Men): 1
The use of the word "race" for the sub-categories (33 total):
Of Men (19 total):
Of Númenoreans (15 total):
- race of the Kings: 1
- race of Númenor: 3
- race of Elendil: 2
- race of Gondor: 1
- high race: 1
- race (referring to the Númenoreans): 3
- race (referring to the Black Númenoreans): 2
- race of the West: 1
- Númenorean race: 1
Of other Men (4 total):
- race (referring to the Rohirrim/Northmen): 2
- race (referring to the Easterlings): 1
- race (referring to the Dunlendings): 1
Of Elves (2 total):
- race (referring to the Noldor): 1
- Eldarin race: 1
Of Dwarves (1 total):
- mountain-race: 1
Of plants and animals (3 total):
- race (of sea-birds): 1
- race (referring to the Mearas): 1
- race (referring to the Rosaceae family of trees): 1
Of Orcs (1 total):
- race of uruks: 1
Of Trolls (3 total):
- troll-race (referring to the Olog-hai): 1
- race (referring to the Olog-hai): 1
- race (referring to the older Twilight trolls): 1
All four uses of the word "race" for sub-categories of Orcs and Trolls are from the Appendices. The main text uses "breed" instead for the Orcs, except for one use of "tribe". The Appendices have two uses of "breed", two uses of "tribe", and one use of "race". The sub-categories of hobbits are a "breed" throughout the entire work, but this usage does not appear in the Appendices. Tolkien's use of the word "breed" is limited to sub-categories of hobbits and Orcs. Sub-categories of Men and Elves are never once a "breed". They are always a "race", and Tolkien does not vary this usage even though he invents multiple variant terms for the descendants of Númenor.
So there is no indication Tolkien was making a reference to the Hobbits being bred for some malign purpose; in fact, the OE bredan indicates a far softer, motherly sense of the word. And Tolkien often chose words rooted in OE or ME rather than Latin or French variations.
Tolkien was writing in Modern English, and also nothing in his usage supports a soft, motherly sense alien to Modern English. Tolkien also felt free to use the word "race" a lot, despite the French and Latin origins. The fact is, "breed" and "race" are not quite synonyms in Modern English, and I think Tolkien knew what he was doing.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Jun 9, 9:01pm
Post #92 of 93
(351 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Okay, modern usage will work fine....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But "modern" in the sense of Tolkien's early-to-mid 20th century usage, and not so much the perjorative that referring to human groups as "breeds' would reflect negatively now in the 21st century.
As we have already established in another thread, Humans are a race, and Hobbits are a branch of humanity per Tolkien (and several citations by the author verify the fact). Hobbits cannot ever be referred to as a race, because they are not a separate species; therefore, Hobbits are a "breed" of the human race, which would fit Tolkien's 20th century frame of the language.
That orcs are referred to in regards to "breeds" has no bearing on Hobbits, who Tolkien (as we all know) says are "a branch of the specifically human race (not Elves or Dwarves)."
If you have an issue with direct quotes from Tolkien about the specificities of the story he wrote, might I suggest sending a strongly worded letter to the Tolkien Family Trust enumerating your issues.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Jun 9, 9:02pm)
|
|
|
Felagund
Rohan
Jun 10, 9:01pm
Post #93 of 93
(304 views)
Shortcut
|
|
we're all hasty according to the Ents
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks noWiz, I always enjoy your comments and especially when it's in reply!
I like how you set out the dichotomy of 'wild' and 'respectable', and I read The Hobbit with similar thoughts in mind. The 'world map' that accompanies the book sort of nudges us in that direction too, I reckon. It literally sets out 'The Edge of the Wild' and on that Edge we have Rivendell, famously described in the book as "the Last Homely House west of the Mountains."
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
|
|
