What ain't there and ought to be. - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Child of the 7th Age · 12-30-2004, 10:37 AM

Lalwende - You may be right on the idea of the "comparative safety" of the trench at least when considering the alternatives that JRRT would have had! In reality, however, they were muddy and unsanitary and unpleasant places!

Littlemanpoet -

I'll definitely take a look at that "new" thread..... after I get my chores done

.

I did drop a note to Davem regarding the question of Hobbits as badgers and am hoping he'll drop by to give us more clarification on that idea. I've been told by several friends in the UK that it's an interesting book and an intriguing argument, though it is all conjecture rather than hard fact.

~Child

Lalwendë · 12-30-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Lalwende - You may be right on the idea of the "comparative safety" of the trench at least when considering the alternatives that JRRT would have had! In reality, however, they were muddy and unsanitary and unpleasant places!

The trenches were undoubtedly so! Tolkien was after all sent home with Trench Fever, which is contracted by suffering from lice, so we can tell he did not find the trenches too pleasant. Now, right at the start of The Hobbit, Tolkien actaully qualifies exactly what sort of hole a hobbit might live in:

Quote:

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

The words in bold seem to convey a little of the trenches - and maybe he made use of the 'comparative safety' element when creating smials, but also needed to make sure we knew, as readers, that these holes were something quite different to the filthy conditions of the trenches.

mark12_30 · 12-30-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lmp

I still think that the WW1 trenches have more to do with Tolkien's Mordor than the Shire.

Definitely. Philip Gibbs, British WW1 correspondent, published 'Now It Can Be Told' after the war was over. He gave his eyewitness account of the trenches at the Somme. I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that .... No. Nevermind.

In Tolkien's 'nastiest' LOTR narrative, he never even came close.

The fact that a hobbit-hole was a NICE, pleasant place makes it diametrically opposite from the trenches at the Somme. They weren't safe, they weren't cozy and they weren't nice. Men went mad sitting in them during the endless shelling. Trenches were worse than oozy, filled with much much much worse than the ends of worms. And you don't want to know about the smell. I've said too much already.

davem · 12-30-2004, 02:14 PM

In answer to Child's question on the theory about Badgers in The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien.

(summary, in my own words, with scattered quotes)

Quote:

The 'Rabbit' connection has been pointed out by Shippey. Rabbits are not a native English species, but badgers are. Badgers tend to be fat, as they don't hibernate. They live in Burrows of up to 25 clan members. 'Their sociability, love of food & home comforts, communal underground dwelling & general inoffensiveness combined with great courage & tenacity at need - are they the very points at which hobbits are most like badgers?'

The name ‘badger is modern. The older name is ‘brock’ (from old Welsh).

Quote:

What is singularly important in the present context is the names which the Scandinavian languages use for ‘badger’. Danish has has ‘graevling’, Norwegian has ‘grevling’, & Swedish has ‘gravling’. ...almost all the words are associated with holes or excavations in the f=ground - ‘grav’ is grave in Danish & Norwegian, & grave, ditch or hole in Swedish...A linguistic point which connects badgers & Hobbits is that of place-names in the Shire which contain badger words

Brockhouses means a ‘badger-sett’ - also the ‘Brockenborings’. Another possible badger name is ‘Bagshott Row’ (deriving from Bag’s Holt - meaning Badger’s wood or thicket) - this acording to Paula Marmor in Allen: ‘An introduction to Elvish’.

The author’s then proceed to speculate on whether Tolkien began by writing a ‘beast fable’ about badgers, which grew into the story we have.

The Badger/Hobbit link is clear - well, it is after reading the whole 12 page, closely printed chapter. But how far it can be pushed is another question. It's possible Tolkien was just playing linguistic games. Its cetainly interesting...

Bêthberry · 12-30-2004, 02:55 PM

I can just see the Hollywood animated feature now: Roger Badger (and the Barrow of Doom?).

Osse · 01-02-2005, 05:56 AM

Sorry to digress as I often to do the start of a thread...

But I always imagined that tradition in the shire was that hobbits were buried in a suitable place - need not be together - for instance under a favourite tree or out in the orchard - in a loved glade or near a favourite turn in a stream. I didn't imagine that the hobbits would leave large gravestones, merely a small cairn of rocks or a small plaque, simply engraved. To me, this fits in with the wholesome nature of hobbits - rememberance should be in the head - let them rest in a favourite spot and remember them in your annals and geneologies - without marring the landscape with unsightly stones or graveyards.

That of course would been there were many graves scattered aroudn the shire - impractical considering all the digging the hobbits do - the fear of disturbing old bones would mar any gardener's plans.

Good point - i can't really find a place for the dead in hobbit society - cept in their annals of course. Probably better that Tolkien left it out.

Regards,
Ossë

Fordim Hedgethistle · 01-02-2005, 09:01 AM

The lack of certain pieces of what we would normally assume to be ‘important’ pieces of information has always struck me as a conscious piece of story-telling by Tolkien, insofar as it makes his world more realistic (in the sense of literary realism). In a novel set in contemporary London, for example, would you expect to find descriptions of graveyards and police forces if these did not feature in the story? Of course not, because we know that graveyards and police are a part of the fabric of London, along with Buckingham Palace and doubledeck buses and dog mess on the sidewalks, and on and on and on.

I remember once reading an interview with George Lucas in which he explained that for him, one of the hallmarks of bad sci-fi is that it spends too much time describing the world it is set in rather than telling a story set in that world. I think that Lucas learned this from Tolkien.

Of course there are graveyards in the Shire, just as there are kitchens and larders in Minas Tirith – these features are not described by the narrators because they are not part of the story and to take time out to address these would call attention to the fact that ‘need’ to be described, which would destroy their reality. A novel set in Paris does not need to describe the Eiffel Tower because we already know it’s there and it is real. To set about describing a Hobbit graveyard is to highlight the fact that one has to describe such a thing because such a thing does not exist. It’s a wonderful slight of hand practised by realist authors since the invention of the form in the 19th century: what you don’t describe is magically made into an ‘assumed’ or ‘given’ element of the story’s reality. In effect, you make things real for the reader by ignoring them!

This has always struck me as a double-edged sword in fantasy, however, for it shows up how the tactics of realist authors are anything but ‘real’. The London of Dickens is no more a “real” place than the Shire; they are created/imaginative realms that are brought to life for the reader through a set of literary/narrative techniques. Where things get interesting, of course, is in looking at why certain elements of the narrated world are deemed ‘important’ to the story by their inclusion in it: the patterns of hobbit-holes (living) and Numenorean-tombs (death), for example, is a fascinating idea I’d never considered before.

12-30-2004, 10:37 AM	#1
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	Lalwende - You may be right on the idea of the "comparative safety" of the trench at least when considering the alternatives that JRRT would have had! In reality, however, they were muddy and unsanitary and unpleasant places! Littlemanpoet - I'll definitely take a look at that "new" thread..... after I get my chores done . I did drop a note to Davem regarding the question of Hobbits as badgers and am hoping he'll drop by to give us more clarification on that idea. I've been told by several friends in the UK that it's an interesting book and an intriguing argument, though it is all conjecture rather than hard fact. ~Child __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 12-30-2004 at 11:00 AM.

12-30-2004, 02:55 PM	#5
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	I can just see the Hollywood animated feature now: Roger Badger (and the Barrow of Doom?). __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

01-02-2005, 05:56 AM	#6
Osse Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Encircling Sea, deciding which ship to ruin next...could be yours. Posts: 274	Sorry to digress as I often to do the start of a thread... But I always imagined that tradition in the shire was that hobbits were buried in a suitable place - need not be together - for instance under a favourite tree or out in the orchard - in a loved glade or near a favourite turn in a stream. I didn't imagine that the hobbits would leave large gravestones, merely a small cairn of rocks or a small plaque, simply engraved. To me, this fits in with the wholesome nature of hobbits - rememberance should be in the head - let them rest in a favourite spot and remember them in your annals and geneologies - without marring the landscape with unsightly stones or graveyards. That of course would been there were many graves scattered aroudn the shire - impractical considering all the digging the hobbits do - the fear of disturbing old bones would mar any gardener's plans. Good point - i can't really find a place for the dead in hobbit society - cept in their annals of course. Probably better that Tolkien left it out. Regards, Ossë __________________ 'A thinking tyrant, it seemed to Vetinari, had a much harder job than a ruler raised to power by some idiot system like democracy. At least HE could tell the people he was THEIR fault.'

01-02-2005, 09:01 AM	#7
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	The lack of certain pieces of what we would normally assume to be ‘important’ pieces of information has always struck me as a conscious piece of story-telling by Tolkien, insofar as it makes his world more realistic (in the sense of literary realism). In a novel set in contemporary London, for example, would you expect to find descriptions of graveyards and police forces if these did not feature in the story? Of course not, because we know that graveyards and police are a part of the fabric of London, along with Buckingham Palace and doubledeck buses and dog mess on the sidewalks, and on and on and on. I remember once reading an interview with George Lucas in which he explained that for him, one of the hallmarks of bad sci-fi is that it spends too much time describing the world it is set in rather than telling a story set in that world. I think that Lucas learned this from Tolkien. Of course there are graveyards in the Shire, just as there are kitchens and larders in Minas Tirith – these features are not described by the narrators because they are not part of the story and to take time out to address these would call attention to the fact that ‘need’ to be described, which would destroy their reality. A novel set in Paris does not need to describe the Eiffel Tower because we already know it’s there and it is real. To set about describing a Hobbit graveyard is to highlight the fact that one has to describe such a thing because such a thing does not exist. It’s a wonderful slight of hand practised by realist authors since the invention of the form in the 19th century: what you don’t describe is magically made into an ‘assumed’ or ‘given’ element of the story’s reality. In effect, you make things real for the reader by ignoring them! This has always struck me as a double-edged sword in fantasy, however, for it shows up how the tactics of realist authors are anything but ‘real’. The London of Dickens is no more a “real” place than the Shire; they are created/imaginative realms that are brought to life for the reader through a set of literary/narrative techniques. Where things get interesting, of course, is in looking at why certain elements of the narrated world are deemed ‘important’ to the story by their inclusion in it: the patterns of hobbit-holes (living) and Numenorean-tombs (death), for example, is a fascinating idea I’d never considered before. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.