Beorn

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

The berserk thought that Grettir & the Farmer were stalling. He started to howl loudly & bite the edge of his shield. He put his shield in his mouth, spread his lips over the corner of it & acted like a savage. Grettir strode over to him & when he came alongside the berserk's horse he kicked the bottom of the shield up into his mouth so hard that his face ripped open & his jaws fell down to his chest. In a single action he grabbed the berserks helmet with his left hand & dashed him from his horse, & with his right hand he drew the short sword he was wearing & struck him on the neck, chopping off his head. When Snaekoll's companions saw this they fled in all directions. Grettir could not be bothered to chase them, for he could tell they were not at all brave.

or the swaggering but easily dispatched Berserkers in Hrolf Kraki's saga for instance, its clear that by the time of the Sagas they are simply thugs & trouble makers whose main role is to give the hero a bunch of bad guys to beat up.

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.

Hmm... that said indeed. Think of Robin Hood or George W. Bush in relation with this! People get along under a bad government but they get along... and then someone comes and says "Hey, I'm going to make you free with fighting the oppressors and thence putting you yourselves on to harms way as well as I make you active parties to this struggle I, the hero, have raised up!" and what follows? More hardship for everyone...

I admit that piling Robin Hood and Mr. Bush together isn't the smartest move (or the most politically correct - or morally the most maintainable ... or the most in-topic move either) but there is a structure of similarity there anyway. And I just couldn't resist this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Hmm... that said indeed. Think of Robin Hood or George W. Bush in relation with this! People get along under a bad government but they get along... and then someone comes and says "Hey, I'm going to make you free with fighting the oppressors and thence putting you yourselves on to harms way as well as I make you active parties to this struggle I, the hero, have raised up!" and what follows? More hardship for everyone...

There're few things more difficult to deal with than a warrior in peace-time. Grettir is a classic example of a man who slays monsters & trouble-makers & is in many ways an agent of civilisation. The problem comes when there are no monsters to be fought, because a warrior is still a warrior. Beorn may fit into the world of TH, but would he fit into the Fourth Age - what role for an Orc-slayer when there are no more Orcs? The Berserkers outlived their time & became a nuisance. I wonder if Beorn lived alone out of choice, or simply because he knew he was a man out of his time & place. Turin was in the same position, but simply couldn't accept it. The more I think about him the sadder Beorn seems.

[Nogrod]

Thanks davem for getting us back to the track... I was a bit unsure whether my point was reasonable in the first place but what is posted is posted.

But to follow your lead. Why do we speculate this much of a character Tolkien himself clearly abandoned in his later years? It's easy to me to see that he was not happy with Beorn (and his capabilities) and thence intentionally forgot him - left him with no mention or not building up anything with the shape-changer-beornings... Had he lived two hundred years he might have come back to Beorn again and tried to solve the problem of his generation or origins which he had brought to life in the Hobbit but it seems he never did it.

Someone more savvy might correct me on this one but that's my impression.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But to follow your lead. Why do we speculate this much of a character Tolkien himself clearly abandoned in his later years? It's easy to me to see that he was not happy with Beorn (and his capabilities) and thence intentionally forgot him - left him with no mention or not building up anything with the shape-changer-beornings... Had he lived two hundred years he might have come back to Beorn again and tried to solve the problem of his generation or origins which he had brought to life in the Hobbit but it seems he never did it..

I think Tolkien found himself stuck with a lot of things once he decided to link the sequel to TH into The Silmarillion. Some things he could work with, others he couldn't. He obviously had a free hand with TH, as it was written as entertainment for his children (& for himself of course). Once the sequel became part of the Legendarium the problems arose. It would have been interesting to see how the 'adult' re-write of TH would have dealt with Beorn, but apparently Tolkien only got a couple of chapters in (Part two of Rateliff's History of the Hobbit has been put back to the end of July/beginning of August apparently). Perhaps one reason he gave up on that project was the difficulty of assimilating characters like Beorn into the Legendarium proper. The thing that makes Tolkien's works so affecting & believable is that he could offer an explanation for the things in his secondary world, but I don't think there is an explanation for Beorn - like Tom he simply 'is'. We simply have to accept his existence in TH, just as we have to accept Tom in LotR. My feeling is that even if he'd lived to be five hundred Beorn would have remained inexplicable in terms of the laws of M-e.

Beorn is necessary in terms of TH, & couldn't be written out - neither could the three 'cockerney' Trolls, but the idea that they could ever have been made to work in a rewrite of TH in the style of LotR is laughable. Its odd how TH is actually closer to Norse myth than LotR - even the Trolls being turned to stone can be traced back to Grettir's Saga, where a Troll actually suffers that very fate:

According to Grettir the trollwoman plunged into the chasm when she received her wound but the people of Bardardal claim she turned to stone at daybreak while they were wrestling & died when he chopped off her arm - & is still standing there on the cliff, as a rock in the shape of a woman.

.

Another interesting point brought up in an essay on the similarities between Gandalf & Odin (by Marjorie Burns???) is the presence of ravens in TH at The Lonely Mountain, & their complete absence anywhere else in the Legendarium - ravens being the bird most strongly associated with Odin. And Gandalf (to my mind) is far more of the Odinic wanderer in TH than he is in LotR. TH is more purely 'northern' in mood & atmosphere - not to mention in the characters that appear - than LotR or The Sil.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

A bit off topic: I suppose this is why there is tales of Harold's army being stoped at Stamford Bridge by a Besrker in Harald (III) Sigurdsson's army. . . .to connect this heathen king with thugs and so on.

sorry I shall stop now, it is just so darn interesting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

When in Middle Earth do men turn into bears? If it's some sort of magic, wouldn't the men of Numenor, the most advanced men, be able to do it? Wouldn't Gondor have an army of giant bear-men? Or more likely, wouldn't Sauron?

Beorn doesn't make sense as a man within the legendarium. No way. The only way I can fit him into the legendarium is to theorize that he is descended from a human who wedded an Ainu who specialized in all things bear related.

Why does he have to fit? Why this obsessive need to systematize everything? Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world), not an RPG system.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Why does he have to fit? Why this obsessive need to systematize everything? Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world), not an RPG system.

I think you'd really need to address that question to Tolkien himself. It seems to me that was his problem, & the reason we didn't get a completed Silmarillion (but see Rateliff: http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2007/06...marillion.html) - he was too concerned with explaining everything & providing a logical explanation - the whole 'Myths Transformed' farrago is confirmation of that. I think your point stands as far as TH is concerned. Beorn doesn't require explanation in the world of TH (Rateliff suggests he was in there as much because the young Tolkien's all loved bears as much as because Tolkien himself wanted to introduce an 'echo' of the Berserkers into his tale) but he does require an explanation in terms of the greater world of LotR & The Sil - simply because in that world things are explained - or Tolkien drives himself crazy trying to explain them: look at the knots he tied himself (& his readers) in in his attempts to account for Orcs.

In TH things pop up, whether cockerney Trolls, tra-la-la-lallying Elves, skin changers, 'gollums' with magic rings or maiden eating dragons. Its a fairy tale world & pretty much anything is thrown in without need of explanation - & we accept it all without question. LotR/The Sil doesn't work that way, & we approach it differently. Personally, I tend to exclude TH from the Legendarium & read it as a stand alone work, & I find I only have any difficulties when I try & make it fit with the the other works.

[the phantom]

Why does he have to fit?

Davem gave a great answer to this, but I'd like to say a bit more.

It is human nature to try and make sense of things. When you are presented with something new, you examine all the facts surrounding it and attempt to give it a place in your mind.

Don't you? (if not, then I'm worried about you)

When you try a new pie, you ask what is in it and how it was baked. And if the person tells you that they don't know, and that they merely placed the pan in the oven and the pie magically appeared, would you honestly be satisfied with that answer? Would you just stupidly say, "Oh, okay, I guess it's an enigma", or would you insist on a better explanation?

Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world)

Well, as D already detailed, Tolkien wasn't creating that kind of world. He liked to explain everything. And with good reason! Humans prefer things to be known. You are right that there exist mysteries and enigmas in this world, but surely you understand that existence does not equal acceptance. Mysteries and enigmas are not accepted in this world. When something unexplainable happens, teams of scientists are assigned to reveal the mystery, and experts everywhere come up with logic based theories to explain the mystery.

It is the same with Beorn. He doesn't make sense in Middle Earth with what we know about Middle Earth, and so he is a mystery. And so now we, the experts, need to come up with logic based theories to explain Beorn.

As I've said on other threads, just because a book can be found in the fantasy section does not mean any old silly thing can happen in it and that we must accept it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, as D already detailed, Tolkien wasn't creating that kind of world. He liked to explain everything.

Not at all. Vide his comments on Bombadil: he's an Enigma, and deliberately so. Tolkien never bothered to explain, even in a note-to-self, in what the One Ring's power actually consisted. He was unconcerned with the mechanics of Sauron bringing It back from Numenor, or Orome carrying weapons for the entire Elvenhost on Nahar. Nowhere did he explain the Great Eagles, except in Manwe's words to Yavanna which confuse as much as they illumine. He never explained (and perhaps didn't know) whether it was Sauron or Caradhras itself which defeated the attempt on the Redhorn Gate. Are the Ents in origin trees with spirits indwelling, or tree-like beings of independent creation? The origin and story of the old man Brego encountered at the Dark Door is a permanent mystery. As he once commented, compared to real-world (medieval) history, the one he produced was somewhat too consistent and thorough.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Not at all. Vide his comments on Bombadil: he's an Enigma, and deliberately so. Tolkien never bothered to explain, even in a note-to-self, in what the One Ring's power actually consisted. He was unconcerned with the mechanics of Sauron bringing It back from Numenor, or Orome carrying weapons for the entire Elvenhost on Nahar. Nowhere did he explain the Great Eagles, except in Manwe's words to Yavanna which confuse as much as they illumine. He never explained (and perhaps didn't know) whether it was Sauron or Caradhras itself which defeated the attempt on the Redhorn Gate. Are the Ents in origin trees with spirits indwelling, or tree-like beings of independent creation? The origin and story of the old man Brego encountered at the Dark Door is a permanent mystery. As he once commented, compared to real-world (medieval) history, the one he produced was somewhat too consistent and thorough.

\

Well, Bombadil is an enigma because he was dragged in from outside M-e & already existed - ie he wasn't invented for LotR. He can't be explained in terms of M-e rules. Its not simply that Tolkien didn't account for Tom - he couldn't. I'm not sure that the other 'mysteries' you cite are the same - they were always part of the Legendarium - Tolkien just didn't get around to explaining them. They don't feel 'out of place', they simply aren't accounted for.

Now, Beorn, the Trolls & the rest in TH are simply 'there' in the world of TH - Bilbo wanders along with Gandalf & the Dwarves & bumps into these beings & we (because of the kind of story TH is) simply accept them without requiring an explanation.

The examples you cite are only mysteries because Tolkien didn't explain them, but I don't think he would have had a problem doing so if challenged - reading the letters he seemed perfectly happy, & more than capable, to account for origins of characters & objects. Only Tom seems to defeat him. Tolkien can't (rather than won't - it seems to me at least) account for Tom. I suspect Beorn would have left him just as stumped. Beorn appears out of Northern legend & there is nothing like him in Arda.

[the phantom]

I never said he did answer everything- I just said he liked to give answers.

There was no way he was going to produce a flawless world and story. There's too much of it. So he explored further the things that bothered him, the things that he thought were important, and left the rest alone. Who knows? If we lived as long as Elves, maybe Tolkien would have answered all those questions. But as our span of years is limited, and he was obviously aware of that, he couldn't and would certainly not set out to find a solution to every problem.

In addition, all of those examples you gave, besides Tom, are not at all like our Beorn dilemma. None of those things are out of place, or utterly baffling. Beorn is a problem because Tolkien's words conflict with themselves so violently. According to Tolkien's writing, Beorn could not be just a man. And yet, according to Tolkien, Beorn was a man.

Say what?

This has nothing in common with your examples. For instance, let's look at your Caradhras/Sauron situation. That is simply a mystery within the story where multiple sensible explanations could be given, and thus there is no certain right answer. Nothing about the event conflicts directly with Tolkien's world as defined by his words. He never said "Sauron can't make it snow" or "A spirit cannot take up residence in a mountain and have some sway over the local weather". Either would work. So naturally I have no problem with it.

But I do have a problem with Beorn, because he does not make sense within Middle Earth. By trying to find an explanation for him, I am essentially trying to stave off another Tom Bombadil, who is in an annoying league of his own. I can put up with one Tom Bombadil, but a book full of TBs....