Beorn - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The Might · 01-02-2009, 09:40 AM

That's an awesome idea, Gordis!

Dol Guldur could, at least theoretically, be an idea. I mean, what if the Necromancer started testing weird stuff on people, trying to turn them into mighty bears that would aid his cause.

Some predecessors of Beorn then escaped or were maybe let loose into the wild, but perhaps because they retained too much humanity they were safe to be around when in human form and were not ready to serve Sauron. Maybe they escaped sometime during the Watchful Peace when Sauron wasn't there, made their way into the Misty Mountains and left again when the Orcs arrived.

But here comes the big problem in the Dol Guldur theory... if Beorn's kind had been actually created by Sauron in some way, then this skill would be not something learned, but rather something passed on genetically. It was in their blood to have this power and Beorn inherited it that way, perhaps as the last of his line.

But why would he then be called a magician? A magician cannot perform tricks as if he has the knowledge in his blood, he learns the tricks first. This is why it would only make sense for Beorn to have been tought shapeshifting by someone who already mastered it. Either his parents in the mountains, who for whatever reason knew this, or Radagast.

Now, of course Sauron may have tought them this, but I doubt it since it was not his style. He would not teach minions how to gain greater power, he would like his master from the First Age rather torment and use dark magic on them.

Ok, now to Beorn's size. I know it sounds incredible that he was this big, but don't be so sure that it was something special really. Now, we know that the men of the mountains he probably descended from were related to the Woodmen, the Eotheod and the Bardings, meaning they all had ancestors in some distant House of Men from the First Age.

However, in Tolkien's works Men are not always what we regard as Men. There are Hobbits as smaller variant and then there are the Giants, a very weird race that appears to have lived in the Misty Mountains as well and who were (I can't the original quote for now) a larger version of men, just like Hobbits were the small one. This is how Tolkien refered to them, still men. Now, although in other early writing (BoLT) Tolkien regards them as evil and creations of Melkor in the Hobbit it appears that nice Giants do exist, as Gandalf wants to find one to block the entrance to the Front Porch.

This means that giant sized men did exist, they were there in the Hobbit, so Beorn's size was nothing really special.

Pure speculation on my part of course, but what if some predecessor of Beorn fell in love with a Giant and then... you know... Beorn inherited some of the Giant's qualities... more or less like Hagrid.

Unfortunately we learn nothing new about Giants in LotR, the only hint given is when the Fellowship hears voices when trying to use the Redhorn Pass.

PS: I am really enjoying the thread.

EDIT: regarding this idea, Ibri, of course it is plausible, but in my opinion not really probable. Gandalf was wisest of all Maia, he probably knew many if not all of them and I would expect him to be informed about these kind of things especially after all those extensive voyages through M-e. That's my problem, I find it difficult to believe that a Maia would take the form of a shapeshifter and marry a man/woman in the mountains like Melian did with Thingol and give birth to such a line. Still plausible though.

skytree · 01-02-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Might

That's an awesome idea, Gordis!

Ok, now to Beorn's size. I know it sounds incredible that he was this big, but don't be so sure that it was something special really. Now, we know that the men of the mountains he probably descended from were related to the Woodmen, the Eotheod and the Bardings, meaning they all had ancestors in some distant House of Men from the First Age.

However, in Tolkien's works Men are not always what we regard as Men. There are Hobbits as smaller variant and then there are the Giants, a very weird race that appears to have lived in the Misty Mountains as well and who were (I can't the original quote for now) a larger version of men, just like Hobbits were the small one. This is how Tolkien refered to them, still men. Now, although in other early writing (BoLT) Tolkien regards them as evil and creations of Melkor in the Hobbit it appears that nice Giants do exist, as Gandalf wants to find one to block the entrance to the Front Porch.

This means that giant sized men did exist, they were there in the Hobbit, so Beorn's size was nothing really special.

Pure speculation on my part of course, but what if some predecessor of Beorn fell in love with a Giant and then... you know... Beorn inherited some of the Giant's qualities... more or less like Hagrid.

Unfortunately we learn nothing new about Giants in LotR, the only hint given is when the Fellowship hears voices when trying to use the Redhorn Pass.

I never thought of the Giant angle and they were an offshoot of Man just like Hobbits. The fact Beorn comes from the Mountains would make sense of him sharing the size traits of the Giants of the Misty Mountains.

The Might · 01-02-2009, 10:30 AM

About the wizard part, he may not have really been aware about the connection between Radagast and Gandalf before really.

Quote:

"I am Gandalf," said the wizard.
"Never heard of him," growled the man, "And what's this little fellow?" he said, stooping down to frown at the hobbit with his bushy eyebrows.
"That is Mr. Baggins, a hobbit of good family and unimpeachable reputation," said Gandalf. Bilbo bowed. He had no hat to take off, and was painfully conscious of his many missing buttons. "I am a wizard," continued Gandalf. "I have heard of you, if you have not heard of me; but perhaps you have heard of my good cousin Radagast who lives near the Southern borders of Mirkwood?"
"Yes; not a bad fellow as wizards go, I believe. I used to see him now and again," said Beorn. "Well, now I know who you are, or who you say you are. What do you want?"

So it appears that Beorn had no idea what wizards were or who Gandalf truly was.
Now, you may say that if had indeed learned so much from Radagast he would not call him only "not a bad fellow" and say they only met "now and again".
I admit that a bit more would be expected from Beorn when speaking of the one that passed this knowledge on to him, but still I see no theory being more likely than this one.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel · 01-02-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Might

Now, you may say that if had indeed learned so much from Radagast he would not call him only "not a bad fellow" and say they only met "now and again". I admit that a bit more would be expected from Beorn when speaking of the one that passed this knowledge on to him, but still I see no theory being more likely than this one.

One would expect Beorn to be more knowledgeable about wizards and have a closer relationship to Radagast, if he learned this skill from him, but is there any evidence that Beorn is the very first of his line to have this ability? Radagast has been in ME for nearly 2000 years by the time of the Hobbit; could he have taught the skill to one of Beorn's forefathers, who taught it to his son, who taught it to his son, etc.? If this is the case, then Beorn may not have more than a passing acquaintance with Radagast (who was becoming more of a homebody by this time, anyway), and yet the skill could still have come from Radagast, ultimately. That's, to me, a more plausible origin that allows for things like the lack of knowledge about wizards, and yet permits a relatively more contemporary origin of skill than something reaching back into the Elder Days.

Andsigil · 01-02-2009, 12:01 PM

I've always wondered about Tolkien's, meaning the man's and the author's, preferences for animals when I read about Beorn.

For example, it seems that Tolkien disliked crows, wolves, and reptiles, which is why he made them villains in his books in the form of crebain, wargs (and Carcharoth), and wyrms. Assuming Tolkien acted on his prejudices by paralleling European mythogy, wolves, to the best of my knowledge, have always been villains in European myths (the exception being the wet nurse of Romulus and Remus). And and one has to look far and wide to find a culture which has positive things to say about snakes in its mythology.

Now, while crows are often portrayed as villains in old tales, Norse mythology, which with Tolkien was no doubt quite knowledgeable, shows them as positively as the sidekicks of Odin in the form of Hugin and Munin. Perhaps Tolkien's dislike for crows was personal, seeing them as carrion eaters and thieves. I'm not certain but I can picture the old man throwing rocks at the crows in his back yard which were stealing food from the bird feeder which he had intended for thrushes.

Tolkien portrays other animals as heroic and noble: hounds, horses, eagles, and bears. The bears are an interesting choice for him to portray positively. Bears are fairly scarce in European myths as far as I know. It's long been assumed that the Viking berserkers got the name from the Swedish "Bärsärk" and wore bear skins as a totem. The parallels between Beorn and the beserkers is obvious, but the Norsemen portray them as barbaric and savage killers, which Beorn is obviously not.

So, as I started to say in the beginning, I wonder what personal preferences led Tolkien to portray bears as being on the side of Good in Middle Earth. Tolkien wouldn't have made Beorn what he was unless he, himself, liked bears for some reason.

The Might · 01-02-2009, 12:20 PM

Well, I'll try to look up some info on bears in mythology an repost them here.

Firstly, we know that Tolkien had extensively studied Norse mythology and particularly the Finnish language when creating the Elvish tongues.
For the Finns the bear has a very important place in their culture, the bear was considered the spirit of the forefathers. It also is the national animal of Finland.
And in many other countries including Germany and Russia bears play an important role often being used symbolically as a way to portray the nation itself and is found in many fairytales.
And even when I think back to my childhood in Romania I remember that the bear is considered to be the king of the forest there and also appears in many fairytales that I used to enjoy.
So I really don't see why the bear would then have to represent anything negative in M-e after Tolkien studied its importance for Europeans.

Ibri, that is a great idea that seems to explain everything we read about in the books. It makes sense that Radagast may have often frequented the Misty Mountains in company of the beasts there, bears as well, and then found these men living there.

Andsigil · 01-02-2009, 12:51 PM

Thanks, TM. I wasn't aware of bears' representation in both Romania and Finland. Tolkien was obviously widely read in mythology and would likely have known this. I was aware of the Russian bear, but never got the impression that Tolkien was a Russophile.

Morthoron · 01-02-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Now, while crows are often portrayed as villains in old tales, Norse mythology, which with Tolkien was no doubt quite knowledgeable, shows them as positively as the sidekicks of Odin in the form of Hugin and Munin.

The parallels between Beorn and the beserkers is obvious, but the Norsemen portray them as barbaric and savage killers, which Beorn is obviously not.

I'm at work currently, so I am going off my fading memory, but I believe Hugin and Munin were ravens and not crows. Ravens are reverenced by Dwarves in the Hobbit, whereas crows are not (also, 'stormcrow' and 'crows and gibbets' being obvious epithets).

Berserkers being savage and barbaric would depend on one's point of view. Perhaps the Franks or Anglo-Saxons believed they were, but among the various denominations of Norsemen they were considered great warriors and heroes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

More seriously, why did Tolkien (in The Hobbit) portray crows as bad but
ravens as good and noble? Is there some northern mythological
reason?

See above. Ravens were Odin's special agents.

01-02-2009, 09:40 AM	#1
The Might Guard of the Citadel Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Oxon Posts: 2,205	That's an awesome idea, Gordis! Dol Guldur could, at least theoretically, be an idea. I mean, what if the Necromancer started testing weird stuff on people, trying to turn them into mighty bears that would aid his cause. Some predecessors of Beorn then escaped or were maybe let loose into the wild, but perhaps because they retained too much humanity they were safe to be around when in human form and were not ready to serve Sauron. Maybe they escaped sometime during the Watchful Peace when Sauron wasn't there, made their way into the Misty Mountains and left again when the Orcs arrived. But here comes the big problem in the Dol Guldur theory... if Beorn's kind had been actually created by Sauron in some way, then this skill would be not something learned, but rather something passed on genetically. It was in their blood to have this power and Beorn inherited it that way, perhaps as the last of his line. But why would he then be called a magician? A magician cannot perform tricks as if he has the knowledge in his blood, he learns the tricks first. This is why it would only make sense for Beorn to have been tought shapeshifting by someone who already mastered it. Either his parents in the mountains, who for whatever reason knew this, or Radagast. Now, of course Sauron may have tought them this, but I doubt it since it was not his style. He would not teach minions how to gain greater power, he would like his master from the First Age rather torment and use dark magic on them. Ok, now to Beorn's size. I know it sounds incredible that he was this big, but don't be so sure that it was something special really. Now, we know that the men of the mountains he probably descended from were related to the Woodmen, the Eotheod and the Bardings, meaning they all had ancestors in some distant House of Men from the First Age. However, in Tolkien's works Men are not always what we regard as Men. There are Hobbits as smaller variant and then there are the Giants, a very weird race that appears to have lived in the Misty Mountains as well and who were (I can't the original quote for now) a larger version of men, just like Hobbits were the small one. This is how Tolkien refered to them, still men. Now, although in other early writing (BoLT) Tolkien regards them as evil and creations of Melkor in the Hobbit it appears that nice Giants do exist, as Gandalf wants to find one to block the entrance to the Front Porch. This means that giant sized men did exist, they were there in the Hobbit, so Beorn's size was nothing really special. Pure speculation on my part of course, but what if some predecessor of Beorn fell in love with a Giant and then... you know... Beorn inherited some of the Giant's qualities... more or less like Hagrid. Unfortunately we learn nothing new about Giants in LotR, the only hint given is when the Fellowship hears voices when trying to use the Redhorn Pass. PS: I am really enjoying the thread. EDIT: regarding this idea, Ibri, of course it is plausible, but in my opinion not really probable. Gandalf was wisest of all Maia, he probably knew many if not all of them and I would expect him to be informed about these kind of things especially after all those extensive voyages through M-e. That's my problem, I find it difficult to believe that a Maia would take the form of a shapeshifter and marry a man/woman in the mountains like Melian did with Thingol and give birth to such a line. Still plausible though. __________________ “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.” Delos B. McKown Last edited by The Might; 01-02-2009 at 09:44 AM.

01-02-2009, 12:01 PM	#5
Andsigil Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The Deepest Forges of Ered Luin Posts: 733	I've always wondered about Tolkien's, meaning the man's and the author's, preferences for animals when I read about Beorn. For example, it seems that Tolkien disliked crows, wolves, and reptiles, which is why he made them villains in his books in the form of crebain, wargs (and Carcharoth), and wyrms. Assuming Tolkien acted on his prejudices by paralleling European mythogy, wolves, to the best of my knowledge, have always been villains in European myths (the exception being the wet nurse of Romulus and Remus). And and one has to look far and wide to find a culture which has positive things to say about snakes in its mythology. Now, while crows are often portrayed as villains in old tales, Norse mythology, which with Tolkien was no doubt quite knowledgeable, shows them as positively as the sidekicks of Odin in the form of Hugin and Munin. Perhaps Tolkien's dislike for crows was personal, seeing them as carrion eaters and thieves. I'm not certain but I can picture the old man throwing rocks at the crows in his back yard which were stealing food from the bird feeder which he had intended for thrushes. Tolkien portrays other animals as heroic and noble: hounds, horses, eagles, and bears. The bears are an interesting choice for him to portray positively. Bears are fairly scarce in European myths as far as I know. It's long been assumed that the Viking berserkers got the name from the Swedish "Bärsärk" and wore bear skins as a totem. The parallels between Beorn and the beserkers is obvious, but the Norsemen portray them as barbaric and savage killers, which Beorn is obviously not. So, as I started to say in the beginning, I wonder what personal preferences led Tolkien to portray bears as being on the side of Good in Middle Earth. Tolkien wouldn't have made Beorn what he was unless he, himself, liked bears for some reason. __________________ Even as fog continues to lie in the valleys, so does ancient sin cling to the low places, the depression in the world consciousness. Last edited by Andsigil; 01-02-2009 at 12:05 PM.

01-02-2009, 12:20 PM	#6
The Might Guard of the Citadel Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Oxon Posts: 2,205	Well, I'll try to look up some info on bears in mythology an repost them here. Firstly, we know that Tolkien had extensively studied Norse mythology and particularly the Finnish language when creating the Elvish tongues. For the Finns the bear has a very important place in their culture, the bear was considered the spirit of the forefathers. It also is the national animal of Finland. And in many other countries including Germany and Russia bears play an important role often being used symbolically as a way to portray the nation itself and is found in many fairytales. And even when I think back to my childhood in Romania I remember that the bear is considered to be the king of the forest there and also appears in many fairytales that I used to enjoy. So I really don't see why the bear would then have to represent anything negative in M-e after Tolkien studied its importance for Europeans. Ibri, that is a great idea that seems to explain everything we read about in the books. It makes sense that Radagast may have often frequented the Misty Mountains in company of the beasts there, bears as well, and then found these men living there. __________________ “The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.” Delos B. McKown

01-02-2009, 12:51 PM	#7
Andsigil Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The Deepest Forges of Ered Luin Posts: 733	Thanks, TM. I wasn't aware of bears' representation in both Romania and Finland. Tolkien was obviously widely read in mythology and would likely have known this. I was aware of the Russian bear, but never got the impression that Tolkien was a Russophile. __________________ Even as fog continues to lie in the valleys, so does ancient sin cling to the low places, the depression in the world consciousness.