Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Anyway, to move on:

What do folks think about another structural parallel to The Hobbit, the everyman hero obtaining a Great Equalizer? In Bilbo's case, it's a Ring of Invisibility; in Giles' case it's Tailbiter. Giles has pluck, common sense and a sort of well-there's-no-help-for-it courage, but most of all he has a sword which practically by itself can terrify a dragon of ancient and imperial lineage.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The acquisition of those objects is a matter of luck, isn't it? And Bilbo is said to have a good deal of luck, though it would not suffice without his courage.

I am always amused over the scholarly glossing over of lack of knowledge that the parson shows when examining the sword: "...some, ah, epigraphical signs..." "The characters are archaic and the language barbaric," said the parson, to gain time. It reminds me of the language of academia used in papers and lectures!

When Giles covers his "chain mail" with his cloak, I am reminded of Gandalf the Grey - who threatens to show himself uncloaked. Obviously there is a time for secrecy and a time for open battle!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well,

It must be admitted that Giles owed his rise in a large measure to luck, though he showed some wits in the use of it. Both the luck and the wits remained with him to the end of his days

Luck not only in Caudimordax itself, but also in the giant blundering into his fields, Chrysophylax advancing on Ham rather than some other place, that particular dragon being the first one the cavalcade of knights blundered into... a whole lotta luck. But we can't deny the wits as well. Opportunity knocked, and Giles opened.

Then again, how best to describe Bilbo's career except as "luck and wits"?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There are numerous contrasts between the knights, whose task it is to protect the kingdom, and Giles. One of them is the matter of protocol - the knights need "official" notice and don't act immediately even then. The "professional" clothing is another - and it provides no protection when it comes to the actual fight with the dragon.

One that stuck out to me upon this rereading is that of fairness. Chrysophylax accuses Giles of unfair treatment because he didn't announce his name and his intention, with a formal challenge. Is the dragon expecting fairness from others while attacking the countryside in an unfair manner himself? It's typical of bullies to be annoyed when another bully stands up to them.

But later Giles expects the dragon to act in fairness when he waits for him to pay up as agreed, and Chrysophylax does not.

[Thinlómien]

Very interesting and enlightening miller discussion, I must say!

So I don't know how far everyone else is but I read (spoiler alert ) until Chrysophylax leaves the village after making his bargain. I like how this dragon story subverts quite a lot of the traditional elements, such as the dragon suddenly being a coward willing to bargain with his treasure to save his life (even if he doesn't intend to keep the bargain). I was also very amused by the mental image of Farmer Giles chasing the fleeing dragon on horseback for miles on end - not very dignified. Even though, of course, the imagery is familiar from for example the Arthurian legendarium and Pellinore chasing his beast, but the way Tolkien writes it underlines the comical side of a man on horseback chasing a formidable monster like that.

The most interesting detail in this part for me, however, was the court's tradition of eating dragons??? I don't remember reading any other story where dragons would be hunted for food. They're usually hunted because they threaten the kingdom and/or have treasure and/or make coveted trophies. Hunting a dragon and eating it seems rather original.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But later Giles expects the dragon to act in fairness when he waits for him to pay up as agreed, and Chrysophylax does not.

I think that in part Giles was a bit complacent after his triumph; but also that Giles no more than the other villagers, even the educated parson, simply could not conceive that a sentient being, no matter how base, could possibly disregard the "solemn and astonishing oaths" which the dragon swore. A bit of a commentary on the power of oaths and their dependency on belief-- an enormous difference between the Middle Ages or even the 19th century and today.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Some years ago, I realised that there were numerous similarities between the tale of Giles and the movie Shrek. I found the thread in which I shared the insights I found (and lectured on in German), so I won't duplicate them here. Check out Honey, I Forgot to Kill the Dragon

Both stories are parodies of established story-telling conventions - what do you think of the comparisons?