|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
May 4 2009, 11:51am
Post #1 of 26
(2673 views)
Shortcut
|
Queer Lodgings Pt One ...
|
Can't Post
|
|
Queer Lodgings pt 1
Hi tornsibs,
This is my first big post in the reading room – so if something seems out of place – please chime in! All help is greatly appreciated. And if Ive left something that you feel is important out of the discussion, please add it in!
Here we go!
Chapter 7 of the Hobbit – Queer Lodgings – finds our Bilbo waking up early with the sun in his eyes, perched high up on the ledge of an Eagle’s eyrie.
The company is about to move location, and once more Bilbo finds himself with eyes shut clinging onto to his Eagle in flight. 15 Eagles now transports the Company to its new untold destination. The Lord of the Eagles stays behind and is bid farewell by the Dwarves who promise to repay the ‘Lord of the Eagles’ if ever they could.
Let’s talk Eagles – I am in agreement that the Lord of the Eagles is not the same one we see in Lord of the Rings ... What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles? If you read LOTR after the Hobbit did you think this was the same Eagle Lord?
From the Annotated Hobbit:
Some Tolkien commentators, including Robert Foster in his ‘Complete Guide to Middle-earth’, have been tempted to equate the Lord of the Eagles in The Hobbit with Gwaihir the Windlord, the eagle that rescues Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. However, this cannot be the case, for as in Chapter 4 Book V of The Return of the King, “The Field of Cormallen,” Gandalf says to Gwaihir:
“Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend.”
The two previous times were demonstrably Gandalf’s escape from Orthanc and when Gwaihir bore Gandalf to Lorien after finding him on the peak of Zirak-zigil subsequent to his flight with the Balrog.
_______________________
The Eagles land the company on the top of a large rock, and as the Eagles fly away, polite goodbyes are said.
The narrator then projects into the story Bilbo’s next sighting of the Eagles – though in doing so, he adds a substantial amount of detail regarding future events about the dwarven gold given to the Eagles and references Bilbo’s and the Eagles involvement in The Battle of the Five Armies.
Quote – The Hobbit:
And though the Lord of the Eagles became in after days the King of All Birds and wore a golden crown, and his fifteen chieftains golden collars (made of the gold that the dwarves gave them), Bilbo never saw them again – except high and far off in the battle of The Five Armies. But as that comes in at the end of this tale we will say no more about it just now.
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
__________________
The Company have been dropped off onto the flat top of a high hill of stone - The Carrock – which is looped by a winding stream, wide grasslands, and Oaks and Elm trees. It has a well-worn path and many steps leading to the ground where there was a little wholesome cave with a pebbly floor.
In the Annotated Hobbit – the name Carrock has been suggested to have been derived from a few sources:
Old English – carr – a stone, rock.
The English Dictionary 1898 – currick – a cairn, a heap of stones, used as a boundary mark, burial place, a guide for travellers.
Beyond Bree – “Carreg Cennen” – the limestone carreg in the Black Mountains in Carmarthenshire in Wales.
____________________
At this point at the Carrock, finally we see the company on the other side of the mountain and out of harm’s way with no real hint of adventure or tragedy happening at this time – it is a rest period, where the company gathers to talk about their plans from this point on.
But we see that a lot of information is given during the course of the company’s discussion. Gandalf announces that he will be leaving the party as he has other pressing things to attend to. The Dwarves are distressed, thinking that Gandalf would come all the way with them and help them out of any difficulties, and Bilbo weeps at the news.
He offers to help them out of their present situation – as he also needs some help, and tells them his plan to find and introduce them to the ‘somebody’ that he knows of, which if all goes well at the meeting, he will be on his way. He also mentions the D word - Danger: "In fact it would be very dangerous." (to wait at the Carrock).
Why do you think Gandalf decides to leave the company now at this time? Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey? If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand? Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
How dependent on Gandalf do you think the Company have now become – why such reactions at the news? Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
Do you think Gandalf chose the Carrock as a place to drop the company? In hindsight does this help Gandalf out with his ‘other matters’ more so than Thorin’s company and where they need to go for their journey?
Why do you think Gandalf, knowing as much as he seemingly does about the area and about the ‘somebody’ not name him at the Carrock?
Do you have a Carrock near your home, or have you ever been anywhere and thought – WOW – that’s just like a Carrock!? Did you go and stand on the top of it?
Thanks everyone for joining in.
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
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
May 4 2009, 1:54pm
Post #2 of 26
(2304 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A few answers, some to the point
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is my first big post in the reading room High time for it! Welcome, and good luck!
What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles?
Gwaihir, unless he is subject to a different king of all birds.
If you read LOTR after the Hobbit did you think this was the same Eagle Lord?
Yes, of course. Otherwise, the scene at the end of 'The Black Gate Opens' loses its power.
I don't think much of the proof brought in The Annotated Hobbit: if I say I reiterated my feeling that the Witch-king had a good chance of defeating Gandalf three times, I obviously mean three times in the Anniversary discussions last week - and I don't think anyone should use that to prove I didn't mean the same thing in a post from a year ago!
And note that in 'The White Rider' Gandalf reports his words to Gwaihir:
"Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need," I said. Ever? This does not seem like the second time he is taking a ride!
Many seem to prefer seperating the Eagles of The Hobbit and LotR, for istance Voronwe the Faithful; they seem to feel the Eagles in The Hobbit are too cheesy for the dignified Messengers of Manwe.
But, as Curious has often noted - so is Gandalf in The Hobbit.
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
Someone (I think it was squire) noted that Tolkien gives all along hints that The Hobbit will end happily.
The inforamation about the Battle of Five Armies is pretty obscure; I don't see it as a real spoiler.
Why do you think Gandalf decides to leave the company now at this time? Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey?
Later, we understand he had a different business - and it did make sense for him to cross the mountains far away from Isengard, and have their rendezvous somewhere pre-planned (Rhosgobel makes sense).
But it is interesting that the crossing of the Mountains is always as far as companions are expected to reach - like Legolas and Gimli, which Elrond declares would go with Frodo as far as the Mountains at least (doesn't sound very far, does it?)
In a way, the Misty Mountains fulfill Morgoth's original plan for them - they hinder the good guys going to the East, and exact a major toll from their endurance and courage.
If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand? Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
Like the goblins, I can count; and I realised all along that Gandalf is not a part of the expedition - he actually reiterates this quite often.
From Gandalf's words about the ways East, I should have guessed that he would leave them before the Long Lake; but of course, I can only speculate on what I guessed thirty years ago, when I first read The Hobbit as an eight-years-old boy.
How dependent on Gandalf do you think the Company have now become – why such reactions at the news?
Well, dwarves are no heroes (as Tolkien will say explicitly in 'Not at Home'). And they really like having someone to take care of them. Of course, they can't be expected to realise that Bilbo is going to be that someone.
Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
"Excitable little fellow".
Note that Bilbo cries twice in the book - the second one would be at his (truly last) farewell from Thorin.
In LotR - the crying is done by Sam, another point of similarity between them, to add to those I've noted before.
Do you think Gandalf chose the Carrock as a place to drop the company?
It appears that he prefered somewhere else, nearer to the woodmen's homes.
In hindsight does this help Gandalf out with his ‘other matters’ more so than Thorin’s company and where they need to go for their journey?
Well yes - especially the horse Beorn gave him!
Why do you think Gandalf, knowing as much as he seemingly does about the area and about the ‘somebody’ not name him at the Carrock?
Gandalf doesn't like being interrogated. So he never surrenders information until he thinks it's the right time.
Do you have a Carrock near your home, or have you ever been anywhere and thought – WOW – that’s just like a Carrock!? Did you go and stand on the top of it?
That's an easy question!
No, I haven't anything vaguely similar where I live - probably not in the whole country.
"It was a good story, that of yours, but I like it still better now I am sure it is true." - Beorn
(This post was edited by sador on May 4 2009, 1:56pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
May 4 2009, 2:18pm
Post #3 of 26
(2273 views)
Shortcut
|
This is my first big post in the reading room – so if something seems out of place – please chime in! All help is greatly appreciated. And if Ive left something that you feel is important out of the discussion, please add it in!
It looks good, but never fear, if I have more comments I will chime in.
What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles? If you read LOTR after the Hobbit did you think this was the same Eagle Lord?
The Lord of the Eagles (later King of All Birds) is not Gwaihir because The Hobbit is set in a different world than LotR. Like the Elvenking and the Master of Laketown and the Great Goblin, the Lord of the Eagles is not given a name, but only a title. I can't think of any of the good guys in LotR who was not given a name. Namelessness was a characteristic of the some of the bad guys -- the Black Riders, the Barrow-wight, the Mouth of Sauron.
What is the importance of a name, as opposed to a title? A name is more personal, and makes even someone as lofty as Galadriel seem like a real person, and not just the Fairy Queen. In LotR we actually hear the conversations between Gandalf and Gwaihir; in The Hobbit we are only told about them as Bilbo would have learned about them, third hand. And apparently Bilbo never learned the Lord of the Eagles' name.
I think this is primarily a function of Bilbo as protagonist. LotR, despite the presence of four hobbit heroes, is still more of an ensemble piece, in which Gandalf plays a prominent part. In The Hobbit, when Gandalf leaves the party, we learn very little about what he is up to. In LotR, when Gandalf parts with the hobbits in Moria, that is just the beginning of his story.
So in LotR we learn Gwaihir's name because we overhear Gandalf speaking with Gwaihir (even though the first time we are hearing Gandalf recount what happened to the Three Hunters), whereas in The Hobbit we do not learn the Lord of the Eagles' name because Bilbo never asked.
Quote – The Hobbit:
And though the Lord of the Eagles became in after days the King of All Birds and wore a golden crown, and his fifteen chieftains golden collars (made of the gold that the dwarves gave them), Bilbo never saw them again – except high and far off in the battle of The Five Armies. But as that comes in at the end of this tale we will say no more about it just now.
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
Tolkien lays the groundwork for the later intervention by the Eagles, making sure that it is not merely a cheap deus ex machina device of the author, but rather an event foreshadowed by the previous role of the Eagles and foretold by the narrator. Luck is an important theme in The Hobbit -- notice how Gandalf stresses that he has succeeded through good planning and good luck -- and the Eagles represent a sort of luck, which at the very end of the tale is connected with something more than luck, something more like Providence. But because they are foreshadowed, and because luck crops up throughout the tale, the Eagles are not a crutch used by an incompetent author, but a deliberate manifestation of luck or Providence, something Tolkien considers very important in his fantasy, and probably in the Primary World as well.
Why do you think Gandalf decides to leave the company now at this time?
Story-external reason: Bilbo is now a bonafide Burglar and it is time for him to take charge. Story-internal reason: Gandalf is off to deal with the Necromancer, and the foundation for this diversion has been laid throughout the book to this point.
Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey?
I suppose he could have learned something from Elrond, but I get the impression that he always planned to leave at this point or before.
If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand?
Perhaps Gandalf wanted the party to reach the point of no return before he parted ways. But if he did not tell them of his plans to leave at this point, he also never promised to stay with them the whole way. This is part of his Trickster personality in The Hobbit.
Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
If we look carefully, there are hints that he will not stay the whole way, but those hints were dropped some time ago, so this can still come as a surprise.
How dependent on Gandalf do you think the Company have now become – why such reactions at the news?
Gandalf has rescued them from the trolls and the Great Goblin, but note that even Gandalf needed rescuing from their latest adventure. Still, without Gandalf it seems likely that they would have been eaten or slaving away in goblin mines.
Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
Good question! Is he sad or scared? I'm inclined to think that he is more sad than scared, and that this sentimental attachment to Gandalf shows how much he has changed. Then again, Tolkien leaves it ambiguous, and Bilbo could just be scared out of his wits at the thought of Gandalf leaving.
Do you think Gandalf chose the Carrock as a place to drop the company?
We know the Lord of the Eagles wanted to land far from men, so the Carrock was not entirely Gandalf's choice.
In hindsight does this help Gandalf out with his ‘other matters’ more so than Thorin’s company and where they need to go for their journey?
No, in hindsight Beorn helps the dwarves more than Gandalf -- with the most significant help coming at the end of the tale.
Why do you think Gandalf, knowing as much as he seemingly does about the area and about the ‘somebody’ not name him at the Carrock?
Gandalf likes to keep some suspense. He's a Trickster. He also knows that introducing Beorn will require some explanation, and perhaps is not looking forward to having to explain. As a matter of fact, he soon gives in and tells the party Beorn's name and something of his nature.
Do you have a Carrock near your home, or have you ever been anywhere and thought – WOW – that’s just like a Carrock!? Did you go and stand on the top of it?
No, I don't recall ever seeing a towering stone island in the middle of a stream or river with stairs to the top. However, I have seen towering rocks next to streams and rivers. Here's one in Illinois. It's called Starved Rock. There used to be a French fort on top, and later, according to legend, Native Americans from one tribe retreated to the top of the rock and held off enemies from another tribe until they starved -- hence the name Starved Rock.
(This post was edited by Curious on May 4 2009, 2:21pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
May 4 2009, 3:19pm
Post #4 of 26
(2277 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Let me clarify my point about the Eagles
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles? Gwaihir, unless he is subject to a different king of all birds. If you read LOTR after the Hobbit did you think this was the same Eagle Lord? Yes, of course. Otherwise, the scene at the end of 'The Black Gate Opens' loses its power. I don't think much of the proof brought in The Annotated Hobbit: if I say I reiterated my feeling that the Witch-king had a good chance of defeating Gandalf three times, I obviously mean three times in the Anniversary discussions last week - and I don't think anyone should use that to prove I didn't mean the same thing in a post from a year ago! And note that in 'The White Rider' Gandalf reports his words to Gwaihir:
"Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need," I said. Ever? This does not seem like the second time he is taking a ride! Many seem to prefer seperating the Eagles of The Hobbit and LotR, for istance Voronwe the Faithful; they seem to feel the Eagles in The Hobbit are too cheesy for the dignified Messengers of Manwe. But, as Curious has often noted - so is Gandalf in The Hobbit.
In my opinion, the Eagles of The Hobbit are not the Eagles of LOTR (or The Silmarillion) but the Eagles of LOTR are the Eagles of The Hobbit. This sounds logically impossible (if A = B and B = C, than A = C), but it is the result of Tolkien's strange writing history. When he wrote The Hobbit it was not meant to be part of his legendarium, even though it was influenced by elements in that mythology. So there were Eagles in the old stories, and there were Eagles in the new children's tale, but they were not remotely the same creatures (any more than the wandering trickster wizard Bladorthin/Gandalf had ANY connection whatsoever to the Ainur). But as LOTR morphed more and more from being a sequel to The Hobbit into a true sequel to 'the Silmarillion' Tolkien bridged that gap between in a largely artificial manner. Hence, the Eagles in LOTR, which as I pointed out in that discussion that you linked to are explicitly by name the same Eagles that appear in The Silmarillion, and are also consistent with those messengers of Manwë by nature and personality, are also implied to be the same Eagles as the ones that appear in The Hobbit, even though the King of the Eagles and his brethren are written to be completely different beings with completely different personalities and nature.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on May 4 2009, 3:24pm)
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 4 2009, 3:52pm
Post #5 of 26
(2277 views)
Shortcut
|
What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles?
Gwaihir's father or grandfather, unless the Eagles elect their chieftains democratically, or else, like many creatures, battle for primacy.
If you read LOTR after the Hobbit did you think this was the same Eagle Lord?
Certainly not! Eagles have a lifespan of ~30 years. It would be impossible. Tolkien, in his letters, says that Beorn has long since died of old age by the time of the Ring War. Yet I'm supposed to believe that a bird lived longer, who is not a thrush (which in the Tolkienverse has an extraordinary lifespan)? I don't think Tolkien intended any such thing, unless someone can point out a passage stating that these are extraordinary eagles with unusual lifespans, avian Numenoreans as it were.
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
Children sometimes need more reassurance about how things will all turn out. The collars made from dwarvish gold lets me know that at least some of the dwarves will succeed in the end--which, far from being a spoiler, made the deaths of Thorin, Fili, and Kili all the more shocking. I just assumed, as a child, that they all would come out all right.
As for the eagles showing up later, I got a thrill out of it, but I had no idea how they would show up. The information simply made me pay attention more, knowing that we would see these characters again.
Why do you think Gandalf decides to leave the company now at this time? Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey?
Gandalf himself states that he planned to leave earlier. He's probably late for his meeting with the White Council.
If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand? Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
Intellectually I should have known better. But just like the dwarves and the hobbit, I blocked from my mind all the clues to the contrary.
How dependent on Gandalf do you think the Company have now become – why such reactions at the news?
Wizards are deucedly handy things to have around, when they're on your side. Who wouldn't be distressed at having to let one go?
Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
Sentiment, I think. He at least knew Gandalf by reputation before he met the dwarves, and even had some childhood association with him. Bilbo weeps over losing his last link with his past--a link that he has grown fond of.
Do you think Gandalf chose the Carrock as a place to drop the company?
As a Plan B, yes. As another said, he preferred a place closer to human habitation, but settled for semi-human habitation. And the Carrock is a landmark easily spotted from the sky.
In hindsight does this help Gandalf out with his ‘other matters’ more so than Thorin’s company and where they need to go for their journey?
I think it's 50/50.
Why do you think Gandalf, knowing as much as he seemingly does about the area and about the ‘somebody’ not name him at the Carrock?
Gandalf likes to phase people in gradually to accept difficult-to-handle information, unless he's in a life-and-death hurry (like he was most of the time in LotR.) What's he going to say? "I'm dropping you off with a were-bear and then hightailing it out of there as fast as I can!" They might just take that the wrong way.
Do you have a Carrock near your home, or have you ever been anywhere and thought – WOW – that’s just like a Carrock!? Did you go and stand on the top of it?
I have seen lots of big rocks, but none ever quite maed the Carrock association for me, I am sad to say.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
LEGIONTX
Ossiriand
May 4 2009, 3:53pm
Post #6 of 26
(2272 views)
Shortcut
|
I do apologize for this absolutely irrelevant post; but I have to say the discussions in the reading room really do show the love for Tolkien's work.
I fear I overstepped my bounds in becoming a member here; as I don't quite think I realized how deep and thoughtful you people are in the analyzing of these works.
I thought I knew LOTR's but I'm beginning to feel a bit outshined. Simply put you members make me feel dimwitted. Is there by chance a Cave Troll/Orc discussion forum; as I'm guessing my mind is more suited to that
Whatever; you people are inspiring to put it mildly. Carry on{as if you weren't going to anyways }
Marching Towards the Abyss...........
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 4 2009, 4:14pm
Post #7 of 26
(2262 views)
Shortcut
|
Please stay with us, LegionTX! We love newbies. Shall I count the ways? - Newbies ask questions that we've become too blinded by familiarity to consider, hurtling us onto startling new trains of thought and opening new perspectives on issues that we thought we had long since nailed down.
- Everyone has expertise in something. Your area of expertise might be radically different from anyone else's in the group. A construction contractor, for instance, might give us all kinds of insights on the various palaces, fortresses, hobbit holes, etc. A nurse might tell us things we didn't know about what characters could endure under different circumstances, or what long-term results a wound might cause. A vagabond might tell us things about travel completely unknown to folks who sit at desks all day. I didn't think that I'd have much to say to a college-educated crowd (I never got education that wasn't free) nor did I think the perspective of an American Indian would add much of anything to Tolkien scholarship, but I found out otherwise.
- The things you might learn here could further enhance your own enjoyment of the books. I know that I have found this true. Heck, they might enhance your enjoyment of life.
- Leaping in where you're in over your head is good for you! I've done it all my life. That's a major way that I've picked up a self-education, plus it's overcome a great deal of personal timidity, and it has opened up wholly unexpected opportunities. It's a splendid habit to cultivate, if I do say so myself.
In summary, think of yourself as a hobbit suddenly thrust into an adventure. Gandalf only knows how you might come in handy for us, and how we might come in handy for you, and who you might become as the journey continues. In any case, you're in the thick of it now, out the door without a hat or handkerchief--congratulations! Don't turn back now, or you might never know what dragon-gold you might have trickled through your fingers.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
May 4 2009, 4:17pm
Post #8 of 26
(2257 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But does Tolkien bridge that gap?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit and LotR are so different in tone that Tolkien seriously considered rewriting The Hobbit from beginning to end to make it more like LotR. I'm glad he abandoned that idea, but I really don't think LotR takes place in the same Secondary World as The Hobbit. There are many similarities, to be sure, but many differences as well, and rather than try to rationalize all the differences, I prefer to treat them as two separate, self-contained stories, with the exception of the substantive changes made to The Hobbit after the publication of LotR -- in particular to "Riddles in the Dark." So for me, Gwaihir is not the Lord of the Eagles or the King of All Birds because Gwaihir appears in LotR and the Lord of the Eagles appears in The Hobbit.
On the other hand, a different question is whether Tolkien intended the readers of The Hobbit to recognize Gwaihir from that earlier tale. Tolkien could have been explicit -- he could have shown Gwaihir wearing a crown of gold, for example, or addressed by title, or reference events from The Hobbit, but he did not. Tolkien leaves it ambiguous. It is possible that Gwaihir is the son of the Lord of the Eagles we meet in The Hobbit -- after all, it has been sixty years. Or it is possible that Gwaihir himself rescued Gandalf in The Hobbit, and that Gandalf forgot about that when he said he was born three times. But I really don't think Tolkien wanted the reader to remember everything he had said about the Lord of the Eagles in The Hobbit, complete with gold crown and the King of All Birds title and stealing sheep, so he glossed over the relationship, making Gwaihir a cross between the messengers of Manwe in The Silmarillion and the sheep-stealing bird royalty in The Hobbit.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
May 4 2009, 5:00pm
Post #9 of 26
(2245 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with everything you say
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Boring, I know, and not very conducive to an interesting discussion, but there you have it.
But I really don't think Tolkien wanted the reader to remember everything he had said about the Lord of the Eagles in The Hobbit, complete with gold crown and the King of All Birds title and stealing sheep, so he glossed over the relationship, making Gwaihir a cross between the messengers of Manwe in The Silmarillion and the sheep-stealing bird royalty in The Hobbit.
That pretty much says it all.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
acheron
Mithlond
May 4 2009, 7:56pm
Post #10 of 26
(2255 views)
Shortcut
|
...when I read your line "We love newbies! Shall I count the ways?" my first thought was "Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew"...?
(That's Sam's description of potatoes in the movie version of TTT, by the way, for those book-only people out there. ;) )
Anyway, welcome LegionTX. While I'm more of a lurker than a posting regular, I do know that people here love to read contributions from everyone. :)
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
batik
Dor-Lomin
May 5 2009, 1:02am
Post #11 of 26
(2224 views)
Shortcut
|
|
skipping the Eagle-identity question but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
I can imagine that Tolkien's audience might have asked "but what about the Eagles?". Many children (and others) adore animals and might appreciate seeing that their 'friends' were rewarded in such a royal manner. Too specific? Just a glimpse at what's coming up! Five Armies!?! Battle?!?
Why do you think Gandalf decides to leave the company now at this time? Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey? If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand? Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
I wonder if Galdalf learned something from the Lord of the Eagles...
How dependent on Gandalf do you think the Company have now become – why such reactions at the news? Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
Hmmm...sort of reminds me of each of my son's first days at kindergarten.
Do you think Gandalf chose the Carrock as a place to drop the company? In hindsight does this help Gandalf out with his ‘other matters’ more so than Thorin’s company and where they need to go for their journey?
Probably a compromise between Gandalf and LotE--low enough for the company to comfortably make the rest of the trip to ground level while the Eagles can avoid landing on that level.
Why do you think Gandalf, knowing as much as he seemingly does about the area and about the ‘somebody’ not name him at the Carrock?
Seems that Bilbo and the Dwarves were paying little attention to this anyhow so why go into the details at this point? Also adds a little mystery for the reader.
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
May 5 2009, 6:34am
Post #12 of 26
(2255 views)
Shortcut
|
In my opinion, the Eagles of The Hobbit are not the Eagles of LOTR (or The Silmarillion) but the Eagles of LOTR are the Eagles of The Hobbit. This sounds logically impossible (if A = B and B = C, than A = C), but it is the result of Tolkien's strange writing history.
But the question is whether Tolkien tried to bridge the gap, and if he didn't (or didn't succeed) whether we should.
And there is at least one hint about the mythical Eagles - in Gandalf's "correct response" to their farewell, refering to the wind bearing them to where the sun goes and the moon walks (can't quote because I haven't the book here). After reading the Silmarillion, I always thought of this.
You seem to agree with my point about the difference between then to be like the difference between Gandalf the trickster and Olorin the wisest of the Maiar (which I actually complained about recently, in my reply to Curious' fourth question about the limitations impose upon Gandalf).
So perhaps you could answer: when did Gandalf grow in power - from Radagast's obscure cousin Beorn never heard of, to the Ambassador Extraordinary of the Valar, the chief Enemy of Sauron?
But I must note that the High-elves are portayed as silly and rather cheesy in The Hobbit, and Tolkien explicitly connects them to his legends about the Faerie in the West. (By the way - was Elrond's name in the earliest versions of the myth?)
So I usually resolve the contradiction in descriptions as a part of the contradiction in tone between the stories. Children (or hobbits, if we want to follow the conceit) will see Eagles as mostly having fun with flying and stealung sheep, like they would enjoy the elves music more than the long, bloody convoluted history of the Noldor (think of Tolkien's reassuring that elves means good folk - quite a childlike equation!). In fact, Aragorn says as much to Frodo in 'Strider' - that as a rule Shirefolk only see Gandalf's fireworks and innocent, pleasant adventures; but that he has been going into great danger for years.
And a last note - I was surprised by Curious statement that the readers of LotR are not expected to remember the Eagles from The Hobbit and connect between them. And you agreed!
Why? All through LotR Tolkien drops names and information we might or might not need again in the story, and by the end of book V we should be alert, especially when the connection is made explicitly.
And anyway, not expecting readers to connect Gwaihir's carrying Gandalf from Orthanc to 'Out of the Frying-pan Into the Fire' seems like a gross underestimation of the readers' memory and intelligence.
Heck, I nearly feel slighted by this - and we have around quite a few who would pounce on the connection long before me!
I'm not speaking about Frodo's dream in Bombadil's house, with which the author might have expected most readers not to connect. But when Gandalf mentions Gwaihir - I think everyone will be reminded of the Lord of the Eagles, especially as in the very same chapter we were given the name of another character known in The Hobbit only by title (Thranduil).
"It was a good story, that of yours, but I like it still better now I am sure it is true." - Beorn
(This post was edited by sador on May 5 2009, 6:36am)
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
May 5 2009, 6:43am
Post #13 of 26
(2362 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the first link I gave in my previous answer...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...Voronwe made this very claim, even asserting that Tolkien intended Gwaihir and Landroval to be names in The Silmarillion. Perhaps he could shed more light on his sources (although he probably did in Arda Reconstructed)?
But I agree that if Beorn dies before LotR, there is no reason to assume the Lord of the Eagles would live so much longer than other birds - but well, there is the thrush, and Roac son of Carc, and I know little of birds in general - so I never thought of this objection.
Eagles have a lifespan of ~30 years. It would be impossible. Tolkien, in his letters, says that Beorn has long since died of old age by the time of the Ring War. Yet I'm supposed to believe that a bird lived longer, who is not a thrush (which in the Tolkienverse has an extraordinary lifespan)? I don't think Tolkien intended any such thing, unless someone can point out a passage stating that these are extraordinary eagles with unusual lifespans, avian Numenoreans as it were.
"It was a good story, that of yours, but I like it still better now I am sure it is true." - Beorn
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
May 5 2009, 9:43am
Post #14 of 26
(2298 views)
Shortcut
|
wanted to remind the reader of everything he said regarding eagles in The Hobbit. If the reader remembered and wondered about the change in tone, so be it. But Tolkien didn't point it out. Certainly, though, the reader would remember that there were eagles in The Hobbit -- and if they didn't, Pippin explicitly remind us. That Tolkien wanted the reader to remember.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
May 5 2009, 2:14pm
Post #15 of 26
(2218 views)
Shortcut
|
You seem to agree with my point about the difference between then to be like the difference between Gandalf the trickster and Olorin the wisest of the Maiar (which I actually complained about recently, in my reply to Curious' fourth question about the limitations impose upon Gandalf). So perhaps you could answer: when did Gandalf grow in power - from Radagast's obscure cousin Beorn never heard of, to the Ambassador Extraordinary of the Valar, the chief Enemy of Sauron? In the course of writing LOTR. Gandalf did not exist in any form before The Hobbit, and the whole idea of the Istari, and even the Maiar, came into being during and after the writing of LOTR. Before then there was a multitude of different kinds of spirits that existed with the Valar. But I must note that the High-elves are portayed as silly and rather cheesy in The Hobbit, and Tolkien explicitly connects them to his legends about the Faerie in the West. (By the way - was Elrond's name in the earliest versions of the myth?) I would say that Tolkien only superficially connects them to the Elves of his legends. As John Rateliff points out, probably the work of Tolkien's that had the greatest influence on the depiction of the Elves in The Hobbit was The Father Christmas Letters which had the same kind of frivolous Elves and was intended for the same audience: Tolkien's children. Elrond's name does in fact appear in the earlier versions of the myth (but not the earliest). He first appears in the "Sketch of the Mythology" which is dated approximately 1926. But I think his inclusion in The Hobbit is just meant to add some depth (like the reference to Gondolin, or the deleted reference to Beren and Luthien), not to explicitly tie the story to the old legends. Though once LOTR became explicitly a sequel to both TH and the Sil, he definitely became a convenient tool to help do so. And a last note - I was surprised by Curious statement that the readers of LotR are not expected to remember the Eagles from The Hobbit and connect between them. And you agreed!
Why? See Curious' response to this. 
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
May 5 2009, 2:22pm
Post #16 of 26
(2252 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I cited the source of my statement in the previous discussion that you linked to
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...Voronwe made this very claim, even asserting that Tolkien intended Gwaihir and Landroval to be names in The Silmarillion. Perhaps he could shed more light on his sources (although he probably did in Arda Reconstructed)?
In that previous discussion that you linked to earlier, I wrote: And, though Chrisopher Tolkien mistakenly obscures this fact, the Eages of LOTR (particularly Gwaihir and Lhandroval) are the same Eagles as the Eagles of the Silmarillion. In the chapter on Beren and Luthien, the description of Thorondor and his vassals soaring high above Morgoth’s realm replaces a statement that Thorondor was the leader of the eagles, and specifying that his “mightiest vassals” were Lhandroval and Gwaihir. Christopher explains that this change was made to avoid confusion with the passage in The Return of the King describing Gwaihir and Landroval as the “mightiest of the descendants of old Thorondor, who built his eyries in the inaccessible peaks of the Encircling Mountains when Middle-earth was young.” (LOTR, 948.) He points out that at the time he did not understand that Gwaihir’s name in this passage was actually changed from “Gwaewar” in 1951 in order to bring it into accord with The Lord of the Rings and that this change should not have been made. (See The Lost Road, 301.)
See also Arda Reconstructed, p. 180. 
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
sador
Gondolin
May 5 2009, 2:26pm
Post #17 of 26
(2246 views)
Shortcut
|
For both this answer, and the other one in this thread.
"It was a good story, that of yours, but I like it still better now I am sure it is true." - Beorn
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
May 5 2009, 3:50pm
Post #18 of 26
(2235 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Have you no shame? Are you a common taxi cab?"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Then Aragorn entered first and the others followed. And there at the door were two guards in the livery of the Citadel: one tall, but the other scarce the height of a boy; and when he saw them he cried aloud in surprise and joy.
'Strider! How splendid! Do you know, I guessed it was you in the black ships. But they were all shouting “corsairs” and wouldn't listen to me. How did you do it?'
Aragorn laughed, and took the hobbit by the hand. 'Well met indeed!' he said. 'But there is not time yet for travellers' tales.'
But Imrahil said to Éomer: 'Is it thus that we speak to our kings?'
-The Houses of Healing
Let’s talk Eagles – I am in agreement that the Lord of the Eagles is not the same one we see in Lord of the Rings.
Indeed, the Lord of the Eagle described by the Elvish and Gondorian revisionists of LOTR is not the same one described by the writer of The Hobbit. Like, say, a poor old country boy meeting Queen Elizabeth II and going "Howdy, Mrs. Queen! How's Mr. Queen and all the little Queens?" And then a horrified Fleet Street going "'Is it thus that we speak to our queens?"
So it is with hobbits.
What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles?
It’s Gwaihir’s Strider mode.
Some Tolkien commentators, including Robert Foster in his ‘Complete Guide to Middle-earth’, have been tempted to equate the Lord of the Eagles in The Hobbit with Gwaihir the Windlord, the eagle that rescues Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. However, this cannot be the case, for as in Chapter 4 Book V of The Return of the King, “The Field of Cormallen,” Gandalf says to Gwaihir:
“Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend.”
The two previous times were demonstrably Gandalf’s escape from Orthanc and when Gwaihir bore Gandalf to Lorien after finding him on the peak of Zirak-zigil subsequent to his flight with the Balrog
It depends on what is meant by “borne”. For example, “borne” by riding on his back, or “borne” by being carried in his claws.
One suspects that for an Eagle, especially for the King of the Eagles, the former is quite undignified. For example:
“’Firenze!’ Bane thundered. ‘What are you doing? You have a human on your back! Have you no shame? Are you a common mule?’”
-Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
Indeed, the hint of an obligation “Thrice shall pay for all, if you are willing” would show that for Tolkien’s eagles, like with Rowling’s centaurs, allowing someone to ride on their backs is an extremely serious matter.
On the other hand, in The Hobbit the Lord of the Eagles carries Gandalf in his talons:
“Just at that moment the Lord of the Eagles swept down from above, seized him in his talons, and was gone.”
For an eagle, it’s quite one thing to swoop down and grab a sheep in its talons. It’s very much another thing to allow a sheep to ride on its back.
It’s not the same.
Note that Frodo and Sam were borne away in the eagles’ talons:
“Side by side they lay; and down swept Gwaihir, and down came Landroval and Meneldor the swift; and in a dream, not knowing what fate had befallen them, the wanderers were lifted up and borne far away out of the darkness and the fire.”
So I have no problem with believing that the Lord of the Eagles of The Hobbit is Gwaihir of LOTR.
Gwaihir might have borne Gandalf in his talons any number of times.
But he only allowed Gandalf to be borne on his back three times.
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
It’s to remind the reader that this is a story being told.
Why do you think Gandalf decides to leave the company now at this time?
So Bilbo can prove himself.
Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey?
It’s like how Tolkien killed off Gandalf at the Bridge of Kazadum. Sometimes a writer finds he’s powered up a character so much that the guy has to be removed or else the story becomes really boring.
It’s like how the idiots behind Star Trek TNG finally realized they had to get rid of Wesley Crusher. The series had become 1000+ highly trained officers and crew (the top 1% of the top 1% of Star Fleet graduates) standing around with their thumbs up their armpits while a snot nose 15 year old kid (who couldn’t even pass the Star Fleet Academy entrance exam) solved whatever grave crisis was threatening the existence of the galaxy that week.
Not good.
If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand?
Tolkien is playing by ear.
Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
Yeah, but like Tolkien, in retrospect I can see where having Gandalf along would be tricky. He’d either have to be conveniently absent at points so his power doesn’t “break the story” (like with the trolls or with Gollum), or else “situationally de-powered” (like with the wargs).
How dependent on Gandalf do you think the Company have now become
Quite dependent.
– why such reactions at the news?
They are quite dependent on him.
Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
Gandalf is Bilbo’s last link to The Shire.
Do you think Gandalf chose the Carrock as a place to drop the company?
He’s near the Necromancer.
In hindsight does this help Gandalf out with his ‘other matters’ more so than Thorin’s company and where they need to go for their journey?
Exactly. It’s like Aragorn traveling with Frodo as far as Amon Hen. Aragorn was just on his way to Minas Tirith. Gandalf is just on his way to Dol Guldur.
Why do you think Gandalf, knowing as much as he seemingly does about the area and about the ‘somebody’ not name him at the Carrock?
“…`and like Beorn of old they are not over fond of dwarves.”
-Many Meetings
One assumes the reverse is true.
Do you have a Carrock near your home, or have you ever been anywhere and thought – WOW – that’s just like a Carrock!?
Yep.
Plus when I read FOTR I noted the similarity to Tol Brandir, or Tindrock, at the Falls of Rauros.
Did you go and stand on the top of it?
Of course. And I spit off it too. I won't say anything else.
******************************************
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.”
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Doriath
May 5 2009, 3:58pm
Post #19 of 26
(2233 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In the words of Tia Dalma/Calypso:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Same story, different versions. And all of them are true." (Truth being relative in this case.)
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
GaladrielTX
Dor-Lomin
May 5 2009, 6:10pm
Post #20 of 26
(2211 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Eagles and Gandalf's Departure
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am in agreement that the Lord of the Eagles is not the same one we see in Lord of the Rings ... What is your view on who this Lord of The Eagles? If you read LOTR after the Hobbit did you think this was the same Eagle Lord?
Well, then, what happened to the Eagle of the Hobbit? Did he die? Should we take this as evidence of the mortality of Manwe’s Eagles, or did the Lord of the Eagles from The Hobbit abdicate?
I read The Hobbit first, and I read LOTR many times before I noticed Gandalf said “thrice”. I liked the continuity of having the same eagle in both stories. It emphasized the road that goes ever on and the great tale that never ends. I like to think Tolkien just forgot about the rescue in The Hobbit or that he miscounted and forgot one of the other times in LOTR or that he meant “three times you’ve rescued me during this mission”. I’m with sador in thinking the Eagles are too important in The Hobbit to be forgotten in LOTR, first rescuing everyone in the trees from the wargs and goblins and then turning up at the climax of the tale. Pippin jogs our memory when he repeats Bilbo’s “The Eagles are coming!” and says something like, “That happened in Bilbo's story.” I consider any discrepancy in the Eagles' personalities a result of the childlike tone of The Hobbit.
Do you think this a necessary injection of information? If so, was it too specific? Or do you feel this was information relevant to be revealed at this part of the tale? Any thoughts as to why it was included?
The storyteller plants a suggestion in our minds to remember these Eagles so we won’t go all “Who is Arwen?” on him when they show up at the end.
Do you think this was a spontaneous decision or do you think Gandalf had always planned to leave at this point on the journey? If it was planned, why do we not hear of this before hand? Did you get the impression that Gandalf would be with them all the way?
He had never planned to stay with them, nor did the Dwarves expect him to from the very beginning. They wanted a Burglar so their party would number fourteen. With Gandalf they add up to fifteen. Gandalf has bigger fish to fry. He’s provided them with a Burglar and has confidence that they will complete their quest. Why waste his effort on this task?
why such reactions at the news? Why would Bilbo be drawn to tears over this?
Upon reading your question, like Batik, I thought of some children’s first day of kindergarten. Mom tells you about it weeks in advance, but when it comes down to being parted the tears will sometimes flow. (No, I didn’t cry.) I think the Dwarves have done a great deal of wishful thinking that Gandalf would stay with them, and they didn’t want to ruin their fantasy by asking him point blank.
~~~~~~~~
The TORNsib formerly known as Galadriel.
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Elvenhome
May 5 2009, 7:29pm
Post #21 of 26
(2201 views)
Shortcut
|
My turn is coming up soon... and I've been trying to do "catch-up" on the past posts; but I wanted to dive in here and visit yours asap!
Wonderful questions! The eagles are really consistent in Tolkien's world. Involved, but only to a point. I hadn't thought that this was Gwaihir. I don't know how long these lordly eagles live. Probably as long as Roac, fersher... but who knows? I also wonder if there are territories for the eagles as there are in RL. Surely we could have multiple Lords of Eagles... each to their own territory. For me, though, Gwaihir is THE ONE!
I think Gandalf intended to leave before the end of the Quest all along... what with an important meeting about to take place that he simply couldn't miss! He probably thought he could get them to the mountain before having to leave, but what with the delays... it wasn't meant to be.
It would stand to reason that Gandalf would ask to be taken to the Carrock since his intention was to go to Beorn's. Poor Bilbo, though. Gandalf was his only respite from those dwarves... though I daresay he was becoming more friendly with a few of them.
"There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West."
~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.
TORn's Observations Lists
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 5 2009, 9:42pm
Post #22 of 26
(2236 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"And they sent a messenger to bring these tidings to me."
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At the Council of Elrond, here. The "they" are the Eagles of the Mountains. The "messenger" is Gwaihir the Windlord, "swiftest of the Great Eagles", a servant of his Eagle-lords: "I was sent to bear tidings not burdens."
No, I never thought the Lord of the Eagles and Gwaihir were one and the same, and neither did Tolkien!
That's a nice little touch in the book, about what happened to the Eagles afterwards, particularly for a children's story: there will be a "happy ending" for at least some of the characters, and we're given the anticipation of what this "Battle of Five Armies" will be!
The Eagles dropping the group off at the top of the Carrock reminds me of Frodo and Sam being plucked from that slag-hill in LotR: they're at a good, safe height above the surrounding area. I should think that an Eagle would want to land directly on the ground as little as possible - his instinct would tell him that he is not safe from predators there.
Another LotR parallel: one might consider Tol Brandir to be an oversized, inaccessible "carrock".
Gandalf will be leaving the group now because this is the first chance he's gotten, since Rivendell, to be able to get away!
(And you're doing just fine, Elven!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
May 5 2009, 10:04pm
Post #23 of 26
(2238 views)
Shortcut
|
There came Gwaihir the Windlord, and Landroval his brother, greatest of all the Eagles of the North, mightiest of the descendants of old Thorondor, who built his eyries in the inaccessible peaks of the Encircling Mountains when Middle-earth was young. Behind them in long swift lines came all their vassals from the northern mountains, speeding on a gathering wind.
Gwaihir sounds like the top Eagle in that passage.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 6 2009, 12:37am
Post #24 of 26
(2207 views)
Shortcut
|
I decided to take a stroll through HoME to check out this bird's background.
In the Council of Elrond chapter from the fourth revision of the text ("Treason of Isengard", p.134 on), there is the first appearance of Gandalf's rescue: "...Gwaewar the Windlord chief of the eagles came to me'...'Had I known that you wished to fly I would have brought helpers. I was sent as the swiftest and as a bearer of [?tidings].'"
A bit of an aside: this eagle (or the name, at least) was not unknown to Tolkien. "End of the Third Age", p. 45, notes: "Gwaewar had been one of the three eagles that came to Angband for the rescue of Beren and Lúthien; the earliest form of that passage reads: 'Thorondor led them, and the others were Lhandroval (Wide-wing) and Gwaewar his vassal.'
"The following text (also belonging to 1937) has: 'Thorondor was their leader; and with him were his mightiest vassals, wide-winged Lhandroval, and Gwaewar lord of the wind.'" It was during the writing of "The White Rider" that Tolkien changed the name to Gwaihir.
So Tolkien rehashed his rescue of Beren and Lúthien for Frodo and Sam. The first sentence of the text you quote is virtually intact as originally written, but unfortunately Christopher T. does not not show whether the sentence about their vassals was also written at that point!
Now, the curious (no pun intended) item: when re-writing CoE, Tolkien removed the reference to Gwaihir being "chief of the eagles". So what are we to make of this? I propose that it was Tolkien's intent that there is a separate Eagle Lord, and that "mightiest" refers to the physical qualities only of these two, implying that they are "knights" of that unnamed Eagle Lord, and as "knights" are bringing all those Eagles who are beholden to them.
Tolkien does refer to Gwaihir as "Windlord", but I can find no mention of him as "Eagle Lord".
And with these Eagles being as different from your average everyday eagle as Elves are from Men, I can see the Lord of the Eagles from The Hobbit as still being around, a bit decrepit perhaps, his golden crown slipping a tad over one eye, and lounging on his royal nest, securing his office by doling out tasks to the younger and stronger brood.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
May 7 2009, 8:49pm
Post #25 of 26
(2197 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for the background info...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd had the same thought - that Gwaihir isn't necessarily the Lord of the Eagles at all - but I wasn't sure how much evidence there was either way.
One of the points I wanted to make, though, was that the Eagles in The Hobbit and the Eagles in LotR, even if not literally the same birds, are still "the same" in that that are just different representations, in different contexts, of the Eagles of Tolkien's legendarium. I thought it would be interesting to make the comparison with real-world legends such as the Arthurian myths, where Arthur is portrayed in many different ways - including the tales of Chretien de Troyes where Arthur is almost absent, and it's his knights who are the heroes. So I really enjoyed reading your idea that the Eagles of LotR "are "knights" of that unnamed Eagle Lord, and as "knights" are bringing all those Eagles who are beholden to them." As for your vision of "the Lord of the Eagles from The Hobbit ... still being around, a bit decrepit perhaps, his golden crown slipping a tad over one eye" - it's perfect!
Looking for evidence of just how Tolkien thought about the differences in tone between his various works, I found this from Letter 131:
The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic...against a high setting.
What struck me is that the story of The Hobbit is called a "matter" from "the great cycle" - "matter" being a specialised word in medieval literature (the Matter of Britain, the Matter of France and so on) describing specific groups of legends, and making me believe that Tolkien saw the story of The Hobbit very much as a part of his great legendarium, with the same Eagles as the ones he had already established (if I understand Voronwe's information correctly) in his other writings before he wrote The Hobbit. He deliberately chose a style to suit his simple, naive and childlike protagonist, and if he later regretted making the style so overtly a children's story in form, he apparently didn't regret the simple style in itself ("I should not wish to change much"). He chose to represent a different side of the Elves and the Eagles in The Hobbit - a side only perceived by his simple protagonist. Did they behave differently towards him, the way a normally grave and dignified individual might behave towards a child? Or did Bilbo just see them differently? Either way, I enjoy the contrast between the two perspectives of essentially the same creatures!
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
|
|
|
|
|
1
