|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Apr 20 2009, 3:45am
Post #1 of 15
(1308 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Chapter V: Riddles In The Dark -- Bilbo Alone
|
Can't Post
|
|
I will be conducting an abbreviated overview and discussion of this chapter, as festivities will soon begin for the TORn site’s anniversary; however, this chapter, as pregnant as it is with foreshadowing of greater events that will require an entire set of books to recount, is fortunately short, and four or five nights will be all that is required to hit upon pertinent discussion points. I will be relying heavily on The Annotated Hobbit with an introduction and notes by Douglas A. Anderson. If this fascinating version of the book is not in your library as of yet, I suggest that you buy it, steal it, or borrow it from your local library and never bring it back. In regards to the discussion, I have meted out the chapter overview in the following manner:
1. Bilbo Alone
2. Enter Gollum
3. The Contest, Part I
4. The Contest, Part II
5. The Great Escape & General Gibberish
Remove the outside,
Cook the inside,
Eat the outside,
Throw away the inside.
(Can you guess what it is?)
Riddles, as you may or may not know, have played an integral part in literature for thousands of years. But before I put the cart before the horse, we certainly can’t leave poor Bilbo all alone in the dark, his head swimming from a nasty fall. As Tolkien intones through the rather garrulous and opinionated narrator, “Just imagine his fright!” Yet as he groped about on all fours in the lightless hall, Bilbo happened to find a ‘tiny ring of cold metal’, which of course changed his life and was the linchpin (if I may mix jewelry metaphors) for the destruction of Sauron (who we only know as the Necromancer currently). This leads us to the great paradox of the story:
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
Bilbo, thinking nothing of the Ring, merely places it in his pocket, and starts thinking of bacon and eggs. What else would a Hobbit be considering in such dire circumstances? To further demonstrate the Hobbits’ naivety/unconcern/obliviousness, Bilbo considered lighting his pipe (Tolkien still refers to tobacco and not pipeweed), but the sensible Baggins side of his nature overruled Tookish impetuosity, and he thought better of it.
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
Bilbo dwells a bit on Gondolin blade. It glows dully in the blackness and Bilbo offhandedly comments, “So it is an elvish blade, too,” as if all elvish blades naturally glow. He also mentions the ‘goblin wars’ of which so many songs were sung.
Is it just me, or does Bilbo’s blade seem to shrink and grow like the One Ring? He calls it ‘a little dagger’ and managed to hide it in his breeches, yet the blade seems to have become more formidable when Samwise was wielding it against Shelob. Is this merely an author’s cheat in this instance?
There is mention of the Hobbits’ ability to tunnel and not lose their sense of direction underground.
Have you ever been spelunking? Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
The influence of George MacDonald resonates throughout The Hobbit, and this chapter is no different. In his Princess and Curdie, MacDonald mentions ‘eyeless fish’ in a subterranean brook, and Tolkien echoes and amplifies this, referring to the ‘fish whose fathers swam in…while their eyes got bigger and bigger and bigger from trying to see in the blackness.’ Tolkien, however, takes an opposite tack from MacDonald, describing the darkness and eerie nature of a subterranean world, whereas MacDonald dwells more on jewel-encrusted shores and paths strewn with rubies and emeralds.
Given Tolkien’s obvious indebtedness to MacDonald, the Eddas and Sagas, and the Kalavela (to name but a few), would it be safe to say that Tolkien as an author was the sum of all that he had learned? Rather than an innovator, was Tolkien a great synthesizer? Let the fisticuffs begin.
Oh, by the way, the answer to the riddle is an ear of corn.
Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Apr 20 2009, 3:47am)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Apr 20 2009, 5:21am
Post #2 of 15
(1200 views)
Shortcut
|
For those without access to The Annotated Hobbit, this side-by-side comparison of the present version with the original might be useful and enlightening.
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
In The Hobbit we don't know it has been 500 years, and I would suggest that originally it was not nearly that long, because the ring merely gave Gollum invisibility. So in the original version Gollum might have accidentally lost it on one of his infrequent ventures away from the underground lake -- although even in the original version, it's remarkable that Bilbo should find it, and at the end of the tale Gandalf implies that Bilbo's remarkable luck had a higher purpose.
Even in the revised version, though, Gollum's age is not revealed in The Hobbit, but only in LotR. There in LotR Gandalf explains that Gollum did not lose the Ring; rather, the Ring, feeling the stirrings of Sauron, chose to leave Gollum. But there's nothing in The Hobbit linking the Necromancer to the ring.
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
Bilbo, thinking nothing of the Ring, merely places it in his pocket, and starts thinking of bacon and eggs. What else would a Hobbit be considering in such dire circumstances? To further demonstrate the Hobbits’ naivety/unconcern/obliviousness, Bilbo considered lighting his pipe (Tolkien still refers to tobacco and not pipeweed), but the sensible Baggins side of his nature overruled Tookish impetuosity, and he thought better of it.
Actually, this is a bit odd coming from Bilbo, who just last chapter was quivering in fear with his head under the blankets. And in fact the chapter does say that Bilbo "gave himself up to complete miserableness, for a long while." But there are no dwarves or wizards about to carry him or lead him or or rescue him or tell him what to do, so eventually he must do something for himself. The first thing he thinks of, smoking, would have been a disaster if he had matches -- note another seeming "anachronism," by the way, since "the first modern, self-igniting match was invented in 1805."
I'm not sure the hobbits were really nonchalant in LotR, either. To me they seem to laugh and cry easily, and there are times when they cower in fear, although few men could do better. But they do have a habit, in moments of great emotion, to speak of something else of no consequence (often food) in order to deflect attention away from the emotion.
This is not something I noticed in "Beowulf" or other great heroic epics. Usually, epic heroes can seem rather boastful, although they do back it up, sometimes at a terrible price. But the hobbits are anything but typical epic heroes. Like many more modern heroes, the hobbits are humble (although they have much to be humble about).
Is it just me, or does Bilbo’s blade seem to shrink and grow like the One Ring? He calls it ‘a little dagger’ and managed to hide it in his breeches, yet the blade seems to have become more formidable when Samwise was wielding it against Shelob. Is this merely an author’s cheat in this instance?
No, I think it's just a dagger, little compared to Gandalf and Thorin's swords, but big enough to serve Bilbo as a sword.
Have you ever been spelunking? Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
The blade's glimmer does help Bilbo see, but not well enough for him to see the water by Gollum before walking into it. When I visited Mammoth Cave they turned off the lights and let our eyes adjust, then lit one match. While you are right that it was pitch black without any light, it was remarkable how much even one small match did to light up a vast cavern, once your eyes adjust to the darkness. What I'm wondering is how Gollum saw anything at all in the darkness, unless he found and saved stolen matches. But Gollum did do alot based on feel.
Given Tolkien’s obvious indebtedness to MacDonald, the Eddas and Sagas, and the Kalavela (to name but a few), would it be safe to say that Tolkien as an author was the sum of all that he had learned? Rather than an innovator, was Tolkien a great synthesizer? Let the fisticuffs begin.
A certain amount of synthesis is inevitable when writing a tale like The Hobbit, which works with traditional elements of fairy-stories and folk tales. But it takes talent to incorporate elements of ancient heroic epics into a story that will appeal to modern audiences. And Tolkien did much more than incorporate those elements; he made them his own, almost single-handedly changing the public's perception of wizards, elves, dwarves, goblins, and magic. And of course hobbits are all Tolkien's invention -- again incorporating a modern element into a quasi-ancient tale. So no, Tolkien's works are not merely a pastiche of greater predecessors, but something far more inventive, although Tolkien had read many ancient romances and may have been influenced by them.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
Apr 20 2009, 6:36am
Post #3 of 15
(1140 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A few answers, some to the point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Can you guess what it is?
I didn't.
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
There is more than one power in the world, isn't there? Actually, Frodo asked this very question in 'The Shadow of the Past', and Gandalf answered that the Ring had abandoned Gollum.
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
It probably started as such.
But by now (the end of the Third Age), it is completely naturalised.
It is interesting to notice that Sam had a similar experience, in 'Journey to the Cross-roads' - waking up from a dream about his pipe, realising that he has no pipe-weed, and then that it would be a very foolish idea to smoke.
Also note that Gandalf does not mind smoking, even when it would be dangerous - and while Darkstone's answer last week might exenorate him on this trip, his smoking in Moria was quite wrong from the security point of view.
Is it just me, or does Bilbo’s blade seem to shrink and grow like the One Ring? He calls it ‘a little dagger’ and managed to hide it in his breeches, yet the blade seems to have become more formidable when Samwise was wielding it against Shelob. Is this merely an author’s cheat in this instance?
I suppose it is just you. It should be at about the length of a hobbit's thigh, and a but of elvish magic would solve the inconvinience problem. And I don't see that Samwise necessarily needed a very long blade against Shelob.
It is interesting that short blades seem to have a more potent magic about them than longswords - consider the barrow-blades, or the Witch-king stabbing Frodo with his knife rather than his sword.
Have you ever been spelunking?
No. I even had to look the word up.
Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
Within the context of The Hobbit alone, possibly; but in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien notes several times that the Ring enhances other senses. I think this should be enough.
Given Tolkien’s obvious indebtedness to MacDonald, the Eddas and Sagas, and the Kalavela (to name but a few), would it be safe to say that Tolkien as an author was the sum of all that he had learned? Rather than an innovator, was Tolkien a great synthesizer? Let the fisticuffs begin.
I do not know enough of MacDonald, and others.
But from a few parallels I know, I would hazard a guess that Tolkien would have liked to think of himself as a synthesizer, but was actually an innovator. As a rule, most innovation can be broken down to compoments which were known already, an the inspiration is in finding the right synthesis.
But that's only a general observation; I am no Tolkien scholar, and cannot really answer this question.
"Praps ye sits here and chats with it a bitsy, my preciousss" - Gollum
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 20 2009, 3:20pm
Post #4 of 15
(1108 views)
Shortcut
|
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
The Ring left him. The Ring was well-practiced in blotting things from Smeagol's memory and attention.
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
Yes, and a very good one it is, too. As for the smoking, Bilbo showed more sense (as soon as he recovered sufficiently from the concussion to think) than Gandalf showed in the mines of Moria! But then Gandalf had been a nicotine addict for a lot longer.
Is it just me, or does Bilbo’s blade seem to shrink and grow like the One Ring? He calls it ‘a little dagger’ and managed to hide it in his breeches, yet the blade seems to have become more formidable when Samwise was wielding it against Shelob. Is this merely an author’s cheat in this instance?
No, the narrator called it a little dagger, in order to remind us of how small Bilbo is, that a dagger would be a short sword to him. And one can hide a short sword in one's breeches from hip to knee. (What we now often mistakenly label as a broadsword was actually called a long sword in its day, to distinguish it from the more common short sword that could be wielded with one hand.)
Have you ever been spelunking? Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
The dull sheen would allow Bilbo confidence as he felt his way along with his hand on the wall, little more. Tolkien clearly mentions the hand along the wall--something Bilbo would not have needed with good visibility. Besides, Bilbo isn't spelunking. He isn't in a raw, natural tunnel, but a goblin-made tunnel carved out expressly for travel and therefore without the usual unexpected obstacles, sudden drops, ravines, etc. that one might encounter spelunking. No doubt it has a rougher floor than a passageway created by dwarves, but the small irregularities would hardly make his journey impossible, albeit cause an occasional stumble or stubbed toe. He can get by well enough by feel--even as his heir later did in Shelob's lair.
As for his discussion with Gollum later on, why would he need sight at all? I have never encountered any difficulty in chatting with blind people--have you? As it so happened, Gollum does have luminous eyes (perhaps because Sting's faint glint reflects off of them?) and so Bilbo has at least a reference point (although voice would be reference-point enough for most people.)
Given Tolkien’s obvious indebtedness to MacDonald, the Eddas and Sagas, and the Kalavela (to name but a few), would it be safe to say that Tolkien as an author was the sum of all that he had learned? Rather than an innovator, was Tolkien a great synthesizer? Let the fisticuffs begin.
Can you name a single storyteller who isn't indebted to storytellers who went before? Yet Tolkien did innovate, first of all in starting his hero out as the last person anyone else of his day would have picked for a hero--somebody neither dashing to begin with, nor young and ripe to become dashing, nor a wide-eyed child as tabula rasa, but a settled, fat, middle-aged conformist who resembles a grocer. Second, by the time he gets to LotR, he completely upsets all prior folklore by declaring a quest to surrender power rather than obtain it--who ever did that before Tolkien? Finally, he invented the trilogy format, albeit by accident. Every trilogy since has followed his pattern of bringing the characters together in the first book or movie, scattering them in the second, pulling them back together in the last.
And what, no comment on some of Bilbo's very best lines ever?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
(This post was edited by Dreamdeer on Apr 20 2009, 3:22pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Apr 20 2009, 3:45pm
Post #5 of 15
(1121 views)
Shortcut
|
... he completely upsets all prior folklore by declaring a quest to surrender power rather than obtain it--who ever did that before Tolkien?
I believe the Gospels and tales of the saints may have been Tolkien's model here. Although there are tales of martyrs in other cultures as well. But the Gospels are Tolkien's prime model, I believe, for according to the Gospels Satan tempted Jesus with world power much as the Ring tempts people with world power. Plus Tolkien calls the Gospels his model in his essay "On Fairy-stories."
Which is not to say Frodo is a stand-in for Jesus. That would be Aslan. But Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn all have Jesus-like characteristics.
(This post was edited by Curious on Apr 20 2009, 3:46pm)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 20 2009, 9:52pm
Post #6 of 15
(1075 views)
Shortcut
|
Good catch--I wasn't even thinking of these as folklore. But whether one considers them true or not, they meet the criterion of lore passed on by folk.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 20 2009, 9:57pm
Post #7 of 15
(1083 views)
Shortcut
|
You're right--Aslan is clearly intended to be a Jesus Christ equivalent. As for Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf (and to some extent Sam and Faramir) having Christlike attributes, that would fall under the goal set for Christians to be imitators of Christ. (Not a goal unique to Christians, either; Buddhists and Hindus also urge their followers to become imitators of their gurus.) One cannot take this literally, since there is no Christ in Middle Earth at this time. But the model sits firmly in the author's head, nonetheless.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
Apr 21 2009, 1:06am
Post #8 of 15
(1102 views)
Shortcut
|
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
Read like Gollum was pretty enthusiastic about catching that small goblin earlier. Maybe his attention being diverted and the possibility that he kind of took for granted the Ring's *being there* resulted in his losing it. This explanation, of course, is not taking into account any of the other *knowledge* we will gain later.
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
I wonder---has Bilbo ever really known *fear* before he set out on this adventure?
Have you ever been spelunking? Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
I think I went into some tourist-y caves when I was a kid...otherwise...no for real spelunking. I have wondered about this pitch black darkness surounding Gollum and Bilbo, too. I also wonder--there being a lake nearby--would there be some crevice through which water and maybe a glimmer of light) could get to the lake? I'm thinking of above ground lakes--during long periods of no rain--the water level will drop. Does that apply to underground lakes? (I dunno!) Maybe I can experiment by going into a dark, closed area and holding up a butter knife to see if the sheen--sheds any light on the matter.
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
Apr 21 2009, 3:53am
Post #9 of 15
(1070 views)
Shortcut
|
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
We dont know that Gollum had never misplaced or lost his Ring before, he may have, but there was no Hobbit there to find it. The difference here is that someone did find it after Gollum lost it, and so another story begins ...
But the Ring is stifled lived with Gollum - and anothers will draws it out of the cave.
I think if Bilbo hadnt found the ring, possibly there would have been another tale of how the Ring made its way out from under the Mountain.
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
I guess it could be a response mechanism - like a comfort to calm the mind while trying to think of a more beneficial solution to the situation. If it had been my late mother she would have made a cup of tea first before doing any serious thinking and then possibly offered Gollum one as well. 
Have you ever been spelunking? Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
I see the glow more like an aura - something that has like fields of light from it which radiate out from the blade which has more of a glow like hot metal might - more internal ...
Maybe Tolkien cheated a little, but then again it was very dark, and the blackness could have made the difference.
Lovely thread Morthoron!
Many thanks 
Cheers
Elven x
Swishtail.
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
Avatar: Liberace - The other Lord of the Rings.
Quote of The Week: The thing is I always write in the morning, and I know that if I go to the Net I won’t write ... you can start in the most scholarly website and end up at Paris Hilton dot com .. GdT
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Apr 21 2009, 11:05am
Post #10 of 15
(1067 views)
Shortcut
|
Can you name a single storyteller who isn't indebted to storytellers who went before? Yet Tolkien did innovate, first of all in starting his hero out as the last person anyone else of his day would have picked for a hero--somebody neither dashing to begin with, nor young and ripe to become dashing, nor a wide-eyed child as tabula rasa, but a settled, fat, middle-aged conformist who resembles a grocer. Second, by the time he gets to LotR, he completely upsets all prior folklore by declaring a quest to surrender power rather than obtain it--who ever did that before Tolkien? Finally, he invented the trilogy format, albeit by accident. Every trilogy since has followed his pattern of bringing the characters together in the first book or movie, scattering them in the second, pulling them back together in the last.
And what, no comment on some of Bilbo's very best lines ever?
I can think of many instances where there are unlikely heroes in literature and folklore, Don Quixote and Jack the Giantslayer being just two. Tolkien didn't invent the trilogy format, nor did he arrange his books in that manner (his publishers reduced it down to 3 books to save costs). And which 'lines' are you referring to as the best ever? If I've missed something, please add your comments. My favorite Bilbo line includes the memorable curses "confusticate and bebother".
P.S. Thanks to Curious for his side-by-side comparison citation, which may prove helpful to many folks who don't have a copy of the original Hobbit or the annotated version.
Read the ongoing serialization of MONTY PYTHON'S 'The HOBBIT', found here:
http://www.fanfiction.net/...y_Pythons_The_Hobbit
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Apr 21 2009, 11:12am)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
Apr 21 2009, 3:14pm
Post #12 of 15
(1055 views)
Shortcut
|
"Go back?" he thought. "No good at all! Go sideways? Impossible! Go forward? Only thing to do! On we go!"
I have found this inspiring many times in difficult situations. One of the TORnsibs (I forget who) has it as a sig-line.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Apr 21 2009, 4:02pm
Post #13 of 15
(1213 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That is a great line -- Bilbo coming up with his own aphorism,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
so to speak. But note that he only came to it after a long time giving himself up to feeling miserable. This is a real turning point, perhaps even more so than his encounter with Gollum. No is there to rescue Bilbo but himself.
It reminds me of Sam's misery when he thinks Frodo is dead, although Sam contemplates suicide, something Bilbo does not seem to consider. But still, if we read between the lines, Bilbo comes very close to such despair here. Then, after a long time, he picks himself up, dusts himself off, and moves forward.
And I know this is jumping the gun a bit, but Bilbo's behavior will contrast with Gollum's. In the original version of The Hobbit, Gollum came to his fate because, like Bilbo, he got cut off from his friends. Even though Gollum had a ring of invisibility and knew the location of the gate, he did not have the courage to try to escape.
Bilbo does have another option he doesn't mention, which is what Gollum chose: just stay stuck right where you are. In a sense the whole story of The Hobbit is about Bilbo becoming unstuck, which has a double meaning -- some see it as freeing, others as the first step towards madness. But it is Gollum who is both stuck and mad.
(This post was edited by Curious on Apr 21 2009, 4:04pm)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Apr 21 2009, 5:04pm
Post #14 of 15
(1028 views)
Shortcut
|
How could Gollum, who had dwelt upon this Ring of Power for over 500 years, possibly lose his ring? He had obsessed over it, talked to it and caressed it like a lover for half a millennia, and yet he misplaced it.
The story says that the Ring tired Gollum when he wore it, and that it "galled" him when he kept it in his pouch. (I had to look up "gall" to see exactly what it meant - "to make sore by rubbing, to chafe severely". Is that where the filmmakers got the idea of the chain rubbing Frodo's neck, I wonder?) So it seems he didn't keep it with him, and didn't miss it immediately when he dropped it. Gandalf says in LotR that the Ring chose to leave Gollum. And I guess we shouldn't argue with Gandalf (although I sometimes do wonder....)
We find this Hobbitish unconcern throughout The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Is such nonchalance a societal trait, an ingrained mechanism to overcome fear?
I suspect that Tolkien was drawing on the popular image of the imperturbable Englishman - or maybe of actual Englishmen that he knew in the trenches.
Is it just me, or does Bilbo’s blade seem to shrink and grow like the One Ring? He calls it ‘a little dagger’ and managed to hide it in his breeches, yet the blade seems to have become more formidable when Samwise was wielding it against Shelob. Is this merely an author’s cheat in this instance?
I agree with others that this is only a "little dagger" by the standards of the Elves for whom it was made. It's a short sword for Bilbo (and for Frodo, and later Sam).
Have you ever been spelunking? Without a light, a cavern is pitch black. Would the Gondolin blade’s dull sheen be enough to allow Bilbo move about, let alone having an in-depth discussion with Gollum later on? Again, is Tolkien cheating just a bit?
Tolkien sure does like setting scenes in the pitch dark, doesn't he! But he does at least allow that a few things show a gleam - the sword, and Gollum's eyes. There must be a tiny bit of light or luminescence from somewhere. I've never been spelunking, although I've been in caverns where they switched off the lights, so I know what you mean. Spelunkers normally have a light too, as far as I know, so the darkness when you switched it off would be total. But I wonder if you would start to get some kind of night vision after adjusting to the darkness? Or perhaps the senses of hearing and touch start to compensate? Anyhow, it doesn't matter in a story - we can see with our mind's eye. It's a challenge for a film, though, when so many scenes are set in the dark.
Given Tolkien’s obvious indebtedness to MacDonald, the Eddas and Sagas, and the Kalavela (to name but a few), would it be safe to say that Tolkien as an author was the sum of all that he had learned? Rather than an innovator, was Tolkien a great synthesizer? Let the fisticuffs begin.
I guess he was both an innovator and a synthesizer. He certainly drew on many old stories and old traditions. But he presented them in a way that no-one had before, and found a way of "translating" the wonder and magic found in the old tales for a modern audience. Certainly he himself acknowledged his debt to old stories - there's a nice metaphor in On Fairy Stories, where talks of "the soup" of stories ("the Pot of Soup, the Cauldron of Story", which "has always been boiling, constantly being added to", and to which every author adds something to make his own story.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
Apr 22 2009, 5:06pm
Post #15 of 15
(1084 views)
Shortcut
|
Ahhhhh!!! Tough week coincides with most interesting chapter!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd like to start with the copy of something I wrote on the last part of the last chapter's discussion, perhaps, we can go deeper in this idea later:
Since Riddles in the Dark comes next, I believe it's vital to build up tension. Riddles in the Dark is arguably the single most important chapter in the whole Tolkien cannon.
The years that it remained in its original form, with Gollum giving the Ring to Bilbo, it was the turning point, that magical artifact of the hero's journey that allows him to fulfill his destiny. From Excalibur to Anakin's lightsaber for Luke Skywalker, these magical artifacts are a key point in the hero's development. And that's only while the chapter remained unchanged.
With the revision, the chapter becomes pivotal to the whole mythology. It is the beginning of the end of a struggle that has lasted 3 ages, more than six thousand years. It is part of Bilbo's journey, but it is the beginning of Frodo's own. It is the change of tide, the beginning of the consummation of The Last Alliance's ideals... Riddles in the Dark means all that and so much more.
http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=183472#183472
Anyway, about your questions, I'll answer this one:
Given Tolkien’s obvious indebtedness to MacDonald, the Eddas and Sagas, and the Kalavela (to name but a few), would it be safe to say that Tolkien as an author was the sum of all that he had learned? Rather than an innovator, was Tolkien a great synthesizer? Let the fisticuffs begin.
Tolkien is the ultimate synthesizer, no doubt. Going along with his idea of sub-creation, there is not such thing as creation in human beings, and the more we are exposed to information, arguably the fewer original things will spawn from our minds. What we do gain is the ability to learn and reconfigure. On the contrary to my last statement, the more information we have, the better we can reconfigure into an apparent innovation. Even a Hobbit borrows from the goblin/elf/dwarf/gnome/troll tradition. I like to think that, in your words, we all are the sum of all that we have learnt.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
|
|
