The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-19-2023, 09:49 AM   #1
Mithadan
Spirit of Mist
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tol Eressea
Posts: 3,397
Mithadan is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Mithadan is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Quote:
where did Bilbo stop being the narrator?
Yes, this may be the point! In the recent A Question of Tone thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19709, this is the argument I was reaching, though I failed to actually follow up.

Tolkien dedicated a lot of text in LoTR to his role as the "translator," going so far as including in the appendices a note on translation where he compares the "original" languages. As Galin mentions, the early forward included more on his role as translator. But what was he translating? He makes it clear that he was translating a copy of the Red Book and its affiliated books of lore. And who wrote them (in Tolkien's subcreation)?

Bilbo clearly wrote There and Back Again. He likely wrote, at least, the beginning of LoTR, which details events through the time that Frodo and his companions reached Rivendell. So an argument (wholly speculative) exists that JRRT, who was detail-oriented (to be polite), had assumed the role of the "translator," and had identified Bilbo as the original author, intentionally conformed his writing style in the opening chapters of LoTR to the more whimsical style (Bilbo's) he employed in The Hobbit. Because Frodo wrote the balance of LoTR, his tone was different.

The inclusion of giants, silly trolls that turn to stone, and Elves singing nonsense? These elements, possibly inconsistent with the otherwise consistent recitations of Middle Earth nature, could be explained as intentional. A combination of Bilbo's writing style (he was crafting a story, not a history) and Bilbo's lack of education, at least until later in his life. Hobbits, and Bilbo, were rustic.

So Tolkien included these elements in his "fairy story," originally written primarily for young readers, and retained them as part of the feigned nature of the narrative. Utter speculation, but a potential explanation.
__________________
Beleriand, Beleriand,
the borders of the Elven-land.
Mithadan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2023, 10:13 AM   #2
William Cloud Hicklin
Loremaster of Annúminas
 
William Cloud Hicklin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,330
William Cloud Hicklin is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.William Cloud Hicklin is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.William Cloud Hicklin is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Let's also not exclude scribal corruption. The work Tolkien "translated" was not the original Red Book!
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.
William Cloud Hicklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2024, 07:46 PM   #3
Dwas2001
Newly Deceased
 
Join Date: Mar 2024
Posts: 1
Dwas2001 has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithadan View Post
Yes, this may be the point! In the recent A Question of Tone thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19709 basket random, this is the argument I was reaching, though I failed to actually follow up.

Tolkien dedicated a lot of text in LoTR to his role as the "translator," going so far as including in the appendices a note on translation where he compares the "original" languages. As Galin mentions, the early forward included more on his role as translator. But what was he translating? He makes it clear that he was translating a copy of the Red Book and its affiliated books of lore. And who wrote them (in Tolkien's subcreation)?

Bilbo clearly wrote There and Back Again. He likely wrote, at least, the beginning of LoTR, which details events through the time that Frodo and his companions reached Rivendell. So an argument (wholly speculative) exists that JRRT, who was detail-oriented (to be polite), had assumed the role of the "translator," and had identified Bilbo as the original author, intentionally conformed his writing style in the opening chapters of LoTR to the more whimsical style (Bilbo's) he employed in The Hobbit. Because Frodo wrote the balance of LoTR, his tone was different.

The inclusion of giants, silly trolls that turn to stone, and Elves singing nonsense? These elements, possibly inconsistent with the otherwise consistent recitations of Middle Earth nature, could be explained as intentional. A combination of Bilbo's writing style (he was crafting a story, not a history) and Bilbo's lack of education, at least until later in his life. Hobbits, and Bilbo, were rustic.

So Tolkien included these elements in his "fairy story," originally written primarily for young readers, and retained them as part of the feigned nature of the narrative. Utter speculation, but a potential explanation.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
Dwas2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2024, 04:05 PM   #4
Priya
Animated Skeleton
 
Join Date: Sep 2023
Posts: 31
Priya has just left Hobbiton.
Unreliable narrator? Or perhaps we are ill-educated readers?

The source and mythology behind the stone-giants is most likely River Legends, 1875 by Edward Knatchbull-Huggesen (one of Tolkien’s favored authors) and the tale of The Giant Bramble-Buffer. Within that story we have colossal rock throwing mountain giants who are also characterized as shouting a lot and depicted to kick folk high in to the air. Those constituents match up splendidly with attributes featured by The Hobbit stone-giants, as does them dwelling in the Swiss Alps which correlates to Tolkien’s 1911 alpine journey (to which he professed inclusion of elements).

I’ve recently dealt extensively with what I believe is the fairy-story behind Tolkien’s stone-giant mythology as well as a ‘decent’ real-world source of the Carrock (again, from Tolkien’s 1911 adventures) on a ‘sister’ website:

http://www.lotrfanaticsplaza.com/for...pic.php?t=1165

Along with stone-giants, there might be a ‘reasonable’ explanation for those discordant troll names:

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...lorful-pair-4/

So perhaps we should not be too hasty at judging our very learned Professor!
Priya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2024, 10:30 AM   #5
Galin
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
Galin is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Galin is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Again, Tolkien himself from his original (published) foreword to The Lord of the Rings:

Quote:
"(. . .) If "composed" is a just word. Bilbo was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little."
But obviously being labelled unreliable doesn't mean "everything" (hyperbole noted) has been confused, or is mere invented Hobbit fancy. Nevertheless, Tolkien knew there were elements in The Hobbit that didn't line up with The Lord of the Rings, or were problematic in some way, and we can see him wrestling with the issues he thought needed fixing, looking at the all too short (in my opinion) 1960 Hobbit.

For some "in story" considerations see The History of The Hobbit's Timelines And Itinerary, where Tolkien is concerned with distances, dates, phases of the Moon, and even the size of Mirkwood. He includes a timetable from Rivendell to Lake Town as well.

And with a later revision, here's a chance to niggle with other details too: like adding dried blood on the famous swords so that Gandalf "couldn't" read the runes on them (couldn't, and didn't immediately read them, that is, and the "task" is still given to Elrond), or introducing place-names from The Lord of the Rings, and a detail like the name of Gandalf's horse. Not to mention a chance to smooth over tone, including removing narrator asides.


In 1954 Tolkien wrote that if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and his world so much thought about 20 years ago, he should not have used the name William for a troll (noting that he'd at least begun The Hobbit as an oral tale for his children, of course). But as has been pointed out, Tolkien retained the name in 1960, and I'm guessing this is at least partly due to Appendix F (published in 1955) now being part of the scenario, wherein a Hobbit-name like "Tom" is not short for "Thomas" for instance, nor even "Samwise" a true name for "Sam" back in "Frodo's" day.

In shorter, now the names could be generally "explained" as being translations, even if not specifically explained. Aside: also in the 1960s there appears a troll what bakes bread for a Hobbit called Perry-the-Winkle. In a poem.



I personally don't have a problem with giants (along with giant Ents and Little People) in Tolkien's world, or bear-based skin changers, or certain Elves teasing Dwarves in Rivendell, or singing the way they are depicted in The Hobbit. I could go deeper as to why, but recently (elsewhere) Tar-Elenion made a suggestion with respect to the "singing Elves" scene, and I hope he doesn't mind me reposting it here:


Quote:
"At last one, a tall young fellow, came out from the trees and bowed to Gandalf and to Thorin. "Welcome to the valley!" he said."

This and the initial encounter with the Elves would have been great for a re-write or re-imagining. The tall young fellow could introduce himself Estel, and the Elves could all be Elf-children and his playmates, thus singing the silly songs, and teasing 'father Thorin' and the other Dwarves.
I like!

Last edited by Galin; 03-27-2024 at 11:00 AM.
Galin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.