![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
#14 | |
|
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Just a few thoughts. As Boro states, Tolkien doesn't use the word 'Berserker' in reference to Beorn. Its clear, though, that Tolkien has the traditional 'berserker' in mind. Yet, the power of the berserker, & his imperviousness to weapons, is attributed (by Snorri in Heimskringla at least) to a blessing by Odin. Perhaps Tolkien's problem was the desire to have such a major 'type' in his story - berserkers play a pretty prominent part in the Saga tradition he was drawing on - but being effectively unable too account for them. They're unexplained simply because Tolkien couldn't use the traditional explanation.
Of course Tolkien is effectively going back to the 'archetype' - Beorn isn't simply a human warrior who goes into a frenzy, but a shapeshifter (either a bear who takes on human form during the day or a man who takes on bear form at night). From that point of view, Beorn is both a shape-shifter (probably shape-shifter first) & a 'berserker' second. Of course, by the time of the Sagas 'berserkers' were often simply vicious thugs, easily dispatched by the hero: Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|