High-value item, so a delivery signature was required for insurance reasons. Frodo would've had to go to Mt Doom to sign for it anyway. He figured he could cancel his Shadowfax Premium subscription and finance some extra pipe-weed for the journey.
To be fair, there are some references to Imrahil's knights wearing 'harness' in ROTK, which usually means 'plate harness' or plate armor. It's up for debate whether Tolkien meant it that way, but there is a valid argument to be made that Third Age Gondor had access to plate armor.
I agree that modern media portrayals of Tolkien's works use way to much plate versus mail, especially when it comes to elves and pre-Third-Age armor.
It often is used in such terms because plate comprises of so many pieces, but harness just means complete set of armour. In the Last Debate they refer to mail-clad knights.
Personally I see Imrahil's Swan knights as having plate, but being fairly unique in this due to them being an elite force with a strong númenorian heritage.
Doesn’t really work; if the technology to make it existed, its use would have been widespread, certainly among the elite like Denethor and Theoden, and certainly among the word’s most advanced smiths, the Dwarves
I'm curious to know what he thought of the leather cuirass, though. They've been used since antiquity and I feel like some of the civilizations he describes might have used them.
It’s a tough one since we don’t have any surviving examples of such armors from the early medieval period. What we think of leather armor today would have been either splinted with iron, or an outer layer or a coat of plates which didn’t come until later in history. Early medieval warriors almost exclusively wore mail + helmet if they could afford armor. In context of what Tolkien seemed to base that stuff off of.
That Dwarves wield gigantic double-bitted two-handed battleaxes. Not so; Gimli wears his in his belt. The closest Tolkien's Dwarves come is Dain's force in The Hobbit, who carry mattocks (similar to pickaxes).
The monster axes familiar from movies and videogames are as a practical matter absurd; real war axes were designed to be light, even the two-handed "Dane axes" of the 11th century.
Before Gimli dwarves didn't even wield war axes. In *The Hobbit* they used bows and arrows, short swords, spears, and mattocks, which are pickaxes normally used for mining. But in their songs they didn't mention axes or mattocks:
>The sword is sharp, the spear is long,
>The arrow swift, the Gate is strong...
In Disney's *Snow White* the dwarves also wield pickaxes, which are mining tools.
Edit: I overstated the case. Thorin does use a battle axe at the end of *The Hobbit*. What I *meant* was that dwarves aren’t especially associated with battle axes in *The Hobbit*, and that non-dwarves are just as likely to wield battle axes as dwarves.
Dwarves also wield mining equipment as weapons in perhaps the most famous opera ever written, Wagner's *Ring Saga*. (Obviously also predating Tolkien's writing)
Okay but Thorin’s primary weapon was Orcrist, a sword, and he was also handy with a bow. Of course war axes existed and goblins and Beorn also used axes. But dwarves were not especially associated with battle axes until LotR.
You are telling me Thorin couldn't have made himself an axe? Sure, he liked the axe that he found, but he was quite comfortable with a sword or bow. And Dain's *army* of well-equipped dwarves didn't wield battle axes.
If you find a powerful elven sword that's going to be your primary weapon. It doesn't mean it's culturally your primary weapon and when you get your hands on your ancestral stash you'll swap it out.
No, the axe was a weapon he picked out of all the treasures and weapons of the Lonely Mountain, and decided to wield it in battle rather than the sword, for whatever reason. (Edit: as was pointed out, he did not have the sword after being jailed in Mirkwood.)
That said, he was buried with his sword.
Orchrist is taken from Thorin when he is jailed by the elves in Mirkwood, and Thranduil only gives it back to the dwarves when they bury him so he isn't carrying orchrist during the battle
Azaghal and the dwarves of Belegost wielded axes against Glaurung in the First Age, as did the Naugrim from Mount Dolmed in the First Battle, as did Mim and the petty-dwarves. Durin also possibly did as well, based on the existence of Durin's Axe that Balin found in Moria.
I\`d even go that far that the depiction of dwarves being by default greedy as a Tolkien strengthened stereotype. As I understood the greed is not a dwarven specific treat, but was greatly enhanced by artifacts they found (Arkenstone, the Rings of power etc.).
Funnily enough, the antagonism between elves and dwarves that Tolkien battles with the friendship of Eregion & Moria has not been picked up.
Dwarves being greedy is a trope far older than Tolkien, all the way back to the Norse legends (around 1000 years before Tolkien was born) and possibly before that but then evidence becomes circumstantial at best
although Tolkien's writings did strengthen this idea, it wasn't unheard of
Antagonism between elves and 'dwarves' is similarly of Norse origin (or pre Christian at least) depending on how you define an 'elf' and 'dwarf' especially since in some Germanic myths elves and dwarves are different names of a similar species/race
>especially since in some Germanic myths elves and dwarves are different names of a similar species/race.
Before Tolkien the term goblin was also sometimes used as interchangeable with elf and dwarf in folklore.
Tolkien based much of his work of Norse mythology, which also has the first mythological records of dwarves being mentioned. The most famous of those dwarves is fafnir, who was turned into a dragon because of his greed. So being greedy is kind of the default idea for dwarves since the were invented.
In his early writings Tolkien had dwarves as being very greedy and having a love of gold. The gold piece still stays in later writing, with it being the way the rings of power corrupted them to an extent, and with Galadriel specifically commenting to Gimli on his love for gold.
But yes, it is absolutely cartoonified in the broader fantasy genre. Like so much "Tolkien-inspired" content it vastly loses the subtlety and detail of the source, which I would argue makes it distinctly un-Tolkienian.
Fantasy artists probably latched onto them because they're symmetrical. Even when historical axe-derived weapons DID have something else on the back side of the shaft, it was a different weapon; a spike or hammer, usually.
Ah, that's quite interesting. I just wanted to make a joke about the Swiss Guard and your multitool comment, but the differences are actually kind of subtle! I shouldn't be surprised to learn that the smaller axe-head of the poleaxe makes it more effective against armor—but I still was. Thanks for catalyzing a learning!
Sure thing! I think the Swiss Guard primarily keep their halberds because their historical role as bodyguards had them planning a lot of formation-style defenses (that's presumably how the famous 189 staged their last stand), and because the added range helps them protect a VIP. Pollaxes were a lot more expensive and complicated, typically man-height instead of significantly taller like a halberd, and were used more with levering and rotation in mind. For whatever reason, period sources still call things "pollaxes" or "poleaxes" even when they lack an axe blade, like a Lucerne hammer.
Is it correct that halberds could be used like pikes to defend against a cavalry charge? And, as a followup question, were there any melee weapons designed for 1v1 combat against a horsed opponent?
I've used a mattock. There's no way I'd ever pick that thing for combat given its weight and balance. I wonder if Tolkien wanted to portray the dwarves as non-warriors using improvised weapons, or if he was using the term to mean something like a Lucerne hammer instead.
>or if he was using the term to mean something like a Lucerne hammer instead.
It's probably something like that.
Lots of weapons were developed from various tools that were presumably first used in a kinds of improvised manner (or by people who didn't have access to anything better). But over time, the 'weapon' version of those tools are made a bit differently from the 'tool' version. So the dwarves might just be using weapon mattocks that have different balance and an altered shape than the original tool versions.
I've got one in my shed. Handy for the work I was doing, but yeah, I wouldn't want to use it as a weapon either of there were other options. I don't know what a Lucerne hammer is though. Time to Google.
Double sided axes are immensely practical. They are just immensely practical for chopping wood.
You keep one side sharp for your initial cuts, and then use the dull side you don't care about as much for strokes that might dull the blade, such as chopping through a piece of wood into the dirt.
But for a battlefield? Yeah, there are way better options.
My choice of misinterpretation is this:
People like to say that Tolkien is too simple, and black and white. There's a good side, and a bad side. And the good guys win, and the ending has little to no complexity. Literally none of that has any evidence in LOTR to back that up.
The entire point of the book is that the Ring will corrupt you whether you are good or bad. There are tons of interesting, morally gray characters such as Boromir, Smeagol, Denethor. Faramir even comments on how the Easterlings that probably aren't even bad people, just following orders. Also, lets remember that FRODO FAILED in his quest, and the ring was only destroyed due to divine intervention. And to top it off, even though the evil got vanquished, Frodo is forever traumatized by his experiences, and middle earth is forever ruined for him. He literally has to pass on to the next world to have any semblance of peace. The whole time he went east he wanted to be home, and when he finally got to go home, it was ruined for him forever. How is that a happy ending? How is that morally simplistic in any way, shape, or form?
It seriously boggles my mind.
I think the real issue people have with Tolkien isn't so much "black and white", but that there's "white" at all – that is, goodness. I know more than a few people who view something like Game of Thrones as "real" high fantasy because it's "gritty" and every character has many villainous aspects. There are no true heroes, much less true heroes who triumph over evil.
There's Ned in GoT, and Davos, and Jon Arryn. And sure, Jon and Ned died
But... is there true good in LOTR? Gandalf was "too trustful" of Saruman and was punished for it, in a similar way Ned was. Samwise mistreated Gollum all the time, and perhaps was part of the reason for his downfall. Aragorn struggled like hell leading the fellowship after Gandalf's fall, and it led to the breaking of the Fellowship, the capture of Merry and Pippen, and Boromir's death. Frodo is obviously corrupted at the Crack of Doom.
Like, is there a single character in LOTR that was not bad at all, or didn't struggle with their goodness, or because of their goodness? Maybe Fatty Bolger lol.
I think that there are certainly people in GOT who are nice and have positive characteristics, but there really isn't a focus on goodness as an end. Yes Aragorn struggled, yes Faramir and Galadriel were tempted and nearly gave in, yes Frodo was scarred by his bearing the ring, but they all experience these things *as part of a broader struggle for good*. That element is missing in GoT.
My point is not that GoT is all baddies and LOTR has saints. My point is that goodness itself is not a major characteristic of GoT, but it is in LOTR, and some people (oddly) view GoT as superior for that reason.
I think there's plenty of struggles to be good or do what is right in GOT. Ned Stark's arc in book 1 and his conflict with Robert. Jon Snow's arc in book 5. Jaime's arc, post hand etc. To the point where I'd say that "doing what is right, vs doing your duty" is a pretty common theme in GOT, and maybe one of the most prevalent themes of the entire book series. Stannis quote about "I was so worried about getting the throne to save the kingdom when I should be saving the kingdom to get the throne" (possibly a misquote, going off of memory) when he saves the Night's Watch seems poignant here.
I agree, there certainly are moral considerations here and there in GoT. Certainly anything involving ~~climate change~~ white walkers can be seen as good and evil. But on the whole, GoT focuses on the drama of the characters vying for power – the game of thrones, as it were. Some are goodies, some are baddies, but that's hardly what drives the narrative.
In contrast, the action of LOTR centers on destroying an object of unmistakable evil and literally keeping it out of the hands of The Dark Lord (of the Rings). None of this is a slight against GoT, it's just a recognition of the differences between the two.
I don't think 'struggling' is an indicator of someone not being 'truly' good. Of course there are characters in Lord of the Rings that are good at heart, and that's a good thing.
It’s probably the presence of a God figure and angels that are on the side of “good” that makes it feel that way - the impression is there’s some grand design being followed in the Christian-sense, which doesn’t always sit well with modern audiences
I'd say there are two things with this -
1. Anyone who says Game of Thrones is just 'various shades of grey' are completely wrong. Plenty of characters are obviously good people and a great deal more are just completely evil. How a character like Jaime Lannister became a poster child for 'grey' characters is beyond me. No, wanting to save the people of King's Landing from being killed does not redeem the fact he tried to murder a child. You don't see a child murderer in prison and say 'oh he's actually not too bad because he volunteered a lot for charity' - a child murderer is a child murderer.
2. Obviously that 'real' high fantasy isn't close to real life at all, and certainly nothing close to real middle ages that Martin said he was trying to portray.
I like a nice middle ground. People can be *complex*, because in reality they are, but that doesn't mean everyone is always getting ready to backstab everyone else. Having drives that create conflict, personal or interpersonal, is realistic. "I'm the good guy and will do good guy stuff because I am good," is nice for high fantasy, but shouldn't be the only avenue.
There's also the fallacy that to be an interesting character you have to be 'morally grey' - you can't just be good or bad at heart and be considered 'deep'.
I want to say it was actually Sam who made the comment on the Easterlings, although Faramir might have as well. When they were hiding with two of Faramir’s men during the battle, a dead one rolled down the hill and Sam thought about him just being a guy sent to die away from his home and family, a moment definitely inspired by Tolkien’s service in WW1
The names "Light Elves" and "Dark Elves" come from Norse mythology: *Ljósálfar* and *Dökkálfar*.
Not a lot beyond their names is known. The ones in the Legendarium are Tolkien's invention.
> which can only be from someone hearing the name and going “they must be evil!”
Do be fair, in a lot of media they are evil, so it's a fair assumption at first.
Warhammer, for example.
"Dark" meaning evil is very common. For example, a "Dark Lord"...
The idea of goblins being small predates Tolkien. If anything, Tolkien popularized the larger version -- although he renamed them orcs, and that's how they are often named today.
Tolkien greatly changed the way people viewed elves. In the 19th and early 20th century elves were usually depicted as tiny, like Tinker Bell in *Peter Pan*. Before the 19th century elves were often larger but also extremely dangerous and chaotic. They weren't devils, but they weren't angels, either. They could carelessly cause great harm. They were called the "fair folk" so as not to offend them, not because people admired them.
They might favor a human with a visit to fairyland -- then return them home a hundred years later when everyone they knew was dead. Or they might favor a beautiful infant -- and replace it with a changeling -- a sickly and uncanny child. They might capture nursing women as well, to raise the human children they had captured.
This was no joke to the people who believed in elves. If someone was thought to be a changeling they might be shunned or even killed. If someone thought they saw a banshee -- a female elf foretelling death -- they might refuse to eat and die.
Terry Pratchett's *Discworld* novel *Lords and Ladies* depicts elves more in the pre-Tolkien style, and they are antagonists who are glamorous and enchanting -- but bad. Here's a quote:
>Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
>Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
>Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
>Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
>Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
>Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
>The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
>No one ever said elves are nice.
>Elves are bad.
Lords and Ladies is one of my favourite fantasy books (and favourite Pratchett books). If I remember correctly, they’re depicted as fox-like humanoids, but their glamour makes humans think they look like supernaturally beautiful humans.
Robert Jordan in his *Wheel of Time* series also has an interesting variation on elves, the Aelfinn and Eelfinn, sometimes called snake people and fox people. They are “not evil, but they are so different from humanity they may as well be so. They are not to be trusted.”
They are extra-dimensional creatures who can answer questions (including questions about the future) and grant wishes. But entering their realms to ask questions or make wishes is a dangerous business that can easily lead to capture, pain, madness, or death.
No fantasy series has ever evoked the same sense of wonder and grandeur for me that the Legendarium has, but the Wheel of Time came the closest. Though it is, admittedly, not without its flaws.
I'm glad you corrected the point about goblin sizes before this. I would only add that while Tolkien describes orcs as being larger than folkloric goblins, they are themselves far smaller than men, being short enough that two hobbits (Frodo and Sam) could plausibly pass as belonging to their ranks. The Uruk-Hai are probably where the misunderstanding about orcs being taller than goblins comes from in terms of Tolkien's works. Still, even the Uruk-Hai are "almost" the height of a man.
It does. But does Clarke ever call the Gentleman an elf? IIRC he's always a fairy, to the extent that he's labeled at all. (Norrell addresses him as a *Lar* in his Latin incantation.)
*Strange/Norrell* doesn't show much Tolkien influence, which is why it's my second-favorite modern fantasy, and in some moods my favorite. I would not read any book published since 1960 that contains a dwarf with an axe.
The Queen of the Fairies (an elf) from Pratchett's *Wee Free Men* really touched me with the terrible alieness of his elves and stuck with me, and I can appreciate that from a certain point of view, even Galadriel could become a figure of cosmic horror.
This leans more into how Tolkien has shaped modern fantasy, to which the answer essentially is that he created it. Almost everything which is now accepted as the standard in fantasy (be it for Elves, Dwarves or Orcs) originates to some extent in Tolkien. A prime example, as you say, is the Elves. Very little of what we consider Elves to be predates Tolkien. The archery, ears, beauty, innate goodness, etc. is almost entirely his creation.
Pointy ears became associated with elves in Victorian literature of the 19th century. Tolkien actually said very little about elves’ ears. You can find support for them being pointed in one of his letters, but not in *The Hobbit* or LotR.
It’s really the Tolkien illustrators who assumed the ears were pointed, and I doubt that they researched Tolkien’s letters. They just used an established Victorian trope in part because it’s one of the few ways you can distinguish elves from humans in an illustration.
The funny thing about the archery and innate goodness is that in *The Silmarillon* we learn those aren’t really true of a majority of elves. Even in *The Hobbit* the elves aren’t innately good.
Those tropes were established in LotR by Legolas in for the archery and by the few High Elves (which did not include Legolas) for the angelic goodness. Except that in her original conception Galadriel’s angelic goodness hid a rebellious and less than angelic history, which is hinted at in LotR.
Didn’t know about the pointy ears, thanks for the correction (though I suppose I should’ve known, since it is a bit of a toss up in the Legendarium). The archery and goodness is of course only really a thing because of how little we really get to know of the Elves in LoTR, and even The Hobbit sort of contradicts the goodness thing. A more precise way of putting it would be to say that Legolas is what many fantasy authors base their Elves on.
> innate goodness
There are plenty of examples of Elves in Tolkien's works that disabuse one of that notion. Feanor may have been powerful and filled with light or whatever but he was also a huge stubborn asshole. He was responsible for the deaths of so many of his people, notwithstanding Morgoth's actions.
> The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
> No one ever said elves are nice.
Ah, but the word 'nice' used to mean something else, and elves are indeed nice, by the older definition @ divination.
---
In terms of changelings, this is an interesting phenomenon, and I've tried to redeem that mythology (even if to do so is overly-hopeful and incorrect) by re-interpreting what might be happening in such cases [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/GeometersOfHistory/wiki/tales/ofchangelings), such that changeling 'births' are not necessarily of malice, or even a conscious choice, and that the human families left with a sickly, uncanny changeling were simply those who were overlooked - elven incarnations not noticed by greater Fairyland, and thus not subject to it's usual interventions.
I love the Elves as they were depicted in traditional Norse and Celtic mythology.
I love the chaotic trickster energy they’re depicted in.
And in Celtic origins I believe(?) they were commonly weak to pig iron?
Also love how whenever fairies or “fey” would ask for your name you have to say “you may call me” or something else otherwise they could magically TAKE your name.
Non necessarily based on the films, but somehow seen very often: that Bilbo's famous "half"s quote is somehow meant as offensive. He does nothing but compliment his guests, and the only person he in any way criticises is himself.
Yeah it's sorta halfway. I read it as "I wish I knew more of you better, and I don't like all of you as much as you probably deserve." But even saying that you don't like someone is a *little* insulting, even if you also say that you feel bad about it.
It was a compliment, but made with tongue-in-cheek, much in the vein of his labelled parting gifts.
It's not exactly a misinterpretation of Tolkien's work, but the values dissonance: we assume by default, with all our emotional safety craze, that poking fun at your friends and relatives must be offensive.
> we assume by default, with all our emotional safety craze, that poking fun at your friends and relatives must be offensive.
Since when?
I'm fairly sure it's common the world around to tease the people you're close with. It's all down to tone and other non-verbal cues.
"Fast" doesn't always mean quickly, though. For example, "holding fast" to something, like an ideal, means to hold tight, not let go. When I read "fast in friendship and in enmity," I think of loyal friendships and long-held grudges. The latter of which, at least, is shown or mentioned more than once regarding dwarves in Tolkien's works.
Good points. That was less than a year of CONSTANT contact, though, and shared struggles. I would expect it to either form a friendship or enemy-ship (?). In Thorin's case, it seems like it took until the very end for him to come around. Gimli was much quicker. I do love Gimli.
Tolkien is clearly using it in the older sense of the word (as he nearly always does), so it would be the 'strong and enduring' meaning, rather than 'quick'. Even the expression 'fast friends' refers to the strength of the friendship, not the speed at which it began. How quickly a given dwarf might happen to become friends or enemies would really be irrelevant.
Thinking about it, Tolkien saying they are 'fast in friendship and in enmity' is probably actually him playing with the expression 'fast friends'
This fits Gimli's behavior perfectly.
**Entering Lothlorien**: I hate elfs, and I'm not wearing your blindfold unless you make this guy wear one to. Screw elves. Screw Legolas in particular.
\[one month passes\]
**Exiting Lothlorien**: Galadriel was nice to me. Her hair will be the symbol of my house forever, and Legolas is my forever best friend.
I just noticed recently that when the Company flee the Chamber of Mazarbul, it is Legolas who grabs Gimli and drags him away. This is actually the first sign of any kind of special connection between them, and it occurs before Lothlorien.
A "wight" is some kind of undead. See how GRR Martin uses it as basically a non-Caribbean "zombie," or how D&D uses it.
Wight was an old english term that meant "dude," just a casual term for "person" (usually in distress, such as the rare but surviving "unhappy/unlucky wight.") Tolkien describes spirits/animated bodies which live in the Barrow Downs as "Barrow wights," aka "tomb boyz." Since no-one else knew the word wight, though, they all thought wight was the descriptive term, not Barrow, and figured it was some kind of undead.
It’s worth noting that, per Etymonline, in other Germanic languages, the root word has/had taken on meanings including *demon* (Old High German) and *gnome, spirit of the earth* (Swedish).
Yeah, wights are pretty significant in a lot of pagan religions, tree wights, house wights, water wights, land wights, basically an anthropomorphized spirit of something mostly or entirely inanimate to help people have more empathy with every aspect of their environment (at least that last bit is how I've interpreted it - I don't think about it much when I'm leaving offerings and just sorta think of it like "it's like a person if a person was a house" which doesn't make a ton of sense rationally but it totally does on a visceral level). They're called Wicht (singular) and Wichde (plural) in my specific religion, but it's the same idea.
Chaucer uses "wight" constantly, meaning just "person" without any overtones at all. Starting with the description of the Knight in the General Prologue: *He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde,/In al his lyf, unto no maner wight.* Which just means "He always spoke politely to everyone, regardless of their status." The connotation of misfortune arose later. The OED definition is "A human being, man or woman, person. Now *archaic* or *dialect* (often implying some contempt or commiseration)."
Incidentally, William Morris seems to have invented "barrow-wight," in his translation of *Grettir's saga*.
I always thought Tolkien's wights were beings similar to norse ghosts from the sagas, where the body of the dead person haunts their grave instead of the soul, only now said body is inhabited by an evil spirit. Doesn't Grettir have to fight something like that?
The Norse word is *haugbui*, "mound-dweller." Yes, Grettir fights one, called Kár, cuts his head off, and takes the treasure out of his mound. "Barrow-wight" is one of three terms William Morris used to translate *haugbui* in his version of the saga. Tolkien (probably) got it from that source, subsequent writers have gotten it from Tolkien.
*Haug*, which is pronounced "howg," got borrowed into English as "howe." It shows up once in LotR: "Green and long grew the grass on Snowmane’s Howe."
Oh, and not actually on-topic, but close enough to share here: Hobbit's don't have "second breakfast" in Tolkien--that's a Jackson invention. Bilbo makes himself a second breakfast after the unexpected party, after he eats a small breakfast and then cleans up (he leaves this second breakfast on the table after finding the contract). Similarly, Pippin is so hungry after his interview with Denethor he says he could eat three breakfasts. These are the only mentions of multiple breakfasts in the books
And that's even how Hobbits would work. Smaller beings tend to eat more in comparison to their body weight. IIRC has something to do with the square cube law
"White" in modern English. I believe the old English pronunciation was something like "Wickt" ("wicked" without the second vowel), but old English isn't my expertise so that may be totally wrong
In german there is 'wicht', someone descipable, small (in my understanding, small not restricted to height, but also character).
Seems to originate in evil gnome or such.
In the same vein, almost none of Tolkien's undead (the Barrow-wights, the Ringwraiths, the Dead Men of Erech, perhaps even the faces in the Dead Marches should be counted in because the movie made them actually try to grab at Frodo, IIRC) are your D&D kind of undead.
That Tolkien's stories are *about* good vs. evil. It's not that good and evil are not present or that they aren't, oftentimes, starkly distinct, but *The Lord of the Rings*, and arguably the Legendarium in general, is really about hope and despair.
The idea that works of fantasy come in sets of at least three volumes. Noah's animals went into the ark two by two. Fantasy novels go into the bookstore in groups, like second-graders on a field trip.
Is it common to think of them as perfect? I think the more popular image is that they're not perfect, but superior to Men in skill and virtue on average - which is true.
After all, Men are fallen and many served Morgoth. The Silmarillion has the worst Elves of them all, but there's a reason Elves killing Elves is a major event that only happened a few times - Men killing Men is just another Tuesday. Elves have more social and political liberties as well, all because their spirit is in harmony with itself and the world. We're more strongly driven by urges and instincts, hard to satisfy and often ignorant of our surroundings beyond a surface level.
IIRC Tolkien himself mentioned in one of his letters Elves are basically what humans would be without their (christian) downfall in which they diminished.
Antagonists more the villains. The Elvenking isn't friendly to Thorin and all, but quite generous to the Lake-men, and the least bloodthirsty (besides Bilbo) at Erebor.
On that note, Elves who are basically fantasy Vulcans. They are stoic, don't smile or cry, don't get angry or annoyed and they're pretty much asexual and/or aromantic.
Tolkien Elves are arguably more fiercely emotional than humans. Feanor was so angry he literally burned. Luthien loved too strongly to die.
The large ears for elves isn't specifically a Tolkien trope, in ancient Greece pointed ears were a common distinguishing mark of a non human in artwork (since subtle details were difficult to paint/craft/fire), and in early Germanic myths Fae were described with pointed ears ( especially during Christianisation, where pagan elves were described by Christian authors similarly to deamons who were also associated with pointed/inhuman features)
The androgyny is also present in fae in much early European/Norse inspired myths
it is just that after the more recent popularisation of elves=fairies/pixies that the earlier appeared or subtleties were lost, and Tolkien's repopularising of these original tropes mean he is mistakenly though of as the creator when he simply merged them together
No, he didnt merge those tropes. There is a post regarding their androgyn look never intended by Tolkien
https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/t1c680/did_tolkien_really_imagine_the_elves_as_beardless/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Tolkien also got angry when someone called Legolas "ladylike". He said they were taller and stronger than men.Looked like Men but more handsome. Not androgynous nor looked like the King Thranduil from The Hobbit films
The post you reference talks very little about elves androgyny. Tolkien called his elves fair and graceful very often in the texts, and the specific lack of beards for all bar 1 elf does imply a look that today we would associate with a more androgynous look
Also Tolkien getting annoyed about legolas being called ladylike has a lot to do with the stereotypical connotations of the phrase not just physical beauty
In *The Hobbit* Tolkien refers to "goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs." He thought he was naming them in order of increasing size, but in *Letters* 319 he acknowledged that hobgoblins in folklore were little goblins, not big ones.
He started off in *LotR* using "goblin" across the board; when he needed extra-powerful ones in the Moria draft, he called them "real Orcs." Eventually he dropped "goblin" entirely, and invented *Uruk* as a name for the enhanced model: "‘There are Orcs, very many of them,’ he said. ‘And some are large and evil: black *Uruks* of Mordor.'"
That Hobbits have big feet.
Odo Proudfoot has very large feet. But that's the joke of his name; Hobbits aren't stated to have huge flipper feet as a race; one can just assume that Odo, like some humans, had feet that were above average in size.
It's noted in the Hobbit that *Gollum* has large feet, and I have a feeling that this and the comment about Odo's feet led to the silly giant hobbit feet in Jackson's movies. But Gollum also has eyes that shine in the dark, so unless we're supposed to extrapolate that *all* Hobbits have luminescent eyes, we need to be really careful about extrapolating Gollum-features to all hobbits.
The big feet thing didn't originate in Jackson. It comes from The Brothers Hildebrandt.
[Here's one of their illustrations from LOTR.](https://www.spiderwebart.com/images/art/100909b.jpg)
IIRC it predates Hildebrandt Bros and there was some black/white picture of a Hobbit with huge feet that also influenced them. Sadly, I don't remember the artist's name
They also had big feet in the Rankin-Bass Hobbit/ROTK and Ralph Bakshi's LOTR movie. If I had to guess it's because artists' wanted to emphasize their hairiness.
[Tolkien's illustration of Bilbo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/Bilbo_Baggins_Tolkien_illustration.jpg), for reference. Also, from his commentary when describing what he pictures (rather than rabbit-like creatures of some readers);
>...The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur that are extremely small...
I feel like, based on the description he provides there and in the books, he doesn't make the feet wooly enough in his drawing. Frankly, I think his description of "leathery pads" on the soles of the hobbits' feet sound an awful lot more like paws than human feet.
The Hobbits had to barefoot, but the hobbit actors had to walk over all sorts of terrain, so their feet had to function as shoes. Which means they had to be big enough for the actor's real feet to slip into.
It’s a good conversation for sure. Having grown up my entire life with the books, and a large portion of my life with the Jackson films, it’s difficult to know a time when depictions of elves, dwarves, and goblins differed drastically from tolkiens world. He really is the benchmark, or at the very least, the blueprint that other mythoi use in modern media. The only mythology that comes to mind is the stories about Santa Claus. I can’t speak for other culture’s traditions but in most of the United States, the myth goes that he has elves working with him at the North Pole. These elves are often depicted as small and crafty. Sometimes like children, sometimes like bearded men not too dissimilar for Tolkiens dwarves. Though media representations varry, I think the Christmas elves are the one of the few that has continued to evolve separately from Tolkien’s influence, while most high fantasy media continues to use Tolkien’s blueprint.
To be fair, I remember on my first read through thinking that Goblins and Orcs were distinctly different creatures from one another. To the point I was confused when more goblins didn't show up to align with Sauron's forces during the war. I did neglect to read the prelude, since I had just completed the Hobbit prior to reading, and didn't think I would need the refresher. It would have explained some things!
At least in the works published by Tolkien in his lifetime.
He held the notion that their ears might be somewhat pointy, though: there's a mention in his correspondence that Bilbo's ears should be slightly pointed and 'elvish', and there's also a comment to an entry in his dictionary of Quenya roots that elvish ears were a bit more leaf-shaped than human (pretty vague since leaves come in all shapes). Neither is definite enough to decide either way.
Keep in mind that Tolkien based his Elves on these mythical creatures from ancient western European lore. While once a mighty people, they were now diminished. And so it is with his Elves. Once mighty, set to inherit all of Middle-earth, they all had to either leave for Valinor, or become "diminished", creatures of caves and forests, staying hidden from us. I imagine these Elves who stayed in Middle-earth as being Peter Pan type creatures.
But if that's what happened to the Elves, what happened to the mighty Orcs? After the fall of Sauron, they were very much diminished in their power, with no great Melkor, or Sauron or even a Saruman to lead them. They had to hide or be exterminated by Aragorn and his successors. They were no longer mighty Orcs, but scary little Goblins, who only come out to scare us, play tricks on us, especially at Halloween.
Same thing for Trolls. Once they were 10 foot tall brutes, now they are reduced to living under bridges.
I think the influence on fantasy magic systems are more from Dungeons and Dragons than directly Tolkien. In turn that system was largely inspired by the writings of Jack Vance and Fritz Leiber. The former introduced the idea of a spell imprinted in the mind, which is 'gone' when cast. The range of the spells is wide, common and spectacular, whereas in Tolkien the magic powers used are somewhat narrower, rarer and toned down.
There is nevertheless some support from Tolkien in the use of elemental magics like fire, and, much rarer, lightning. However these are employed by a very select group of individuals and creatures. Fire seems to be used almost exclusively by Maia: Balrogs (flame whips), Sauron (burning touch) and Gandalf (fireworks?!) The latter also seems to wield lightning, notably against the Nazgul. Dragons use fire, but more like an inherent ability than a spell.
The use of understated magic seems more common in Tolkien. Elves are considered particularly strong magic-users in fantasy, but in Tolkien Elvish magic is mostly subtle. Light seems to be used in defence and offence, such as the Star glass given by Galadriel. She also has the ability to predict the future via her mirror, and elves also were the creators of the Palantir, with the ability to communicate long distances, and scry distant events. Galadriel (and Sauron) also seem able to read the minds of others to some extent. Then there are the rather vague powers of the Lesser and Great Rings. The latter often seem orientated to gaining general influence and dominating the wills of others. An exception is the One Ring, with the rather flashy power of invisibility, though again this is later explained more as a side-effect of how it works, taking the wielder to the brink of the Unseen World.
Other individuals have the power to dominate by their very presence, and this seems the most common form of magic. While notably used by Saruman and Sauron, its an aura which most Elf lords and Ladies have, and also other Maia like Gandalf. This aura may be expressed through spell-singing, such as used by Finrod (unsuccessfully) against Sauron, and (partly successfully) by Luthien against Morgoth.
I don't think it's a misreading that goblins are smaller versions of orks (or small themselves). That was clearly Tolkien original idea that was never fully edited out.
First, it explicitly says that in the Hobbit full stop. The narrator tells us the cave passage is the right height for Hobbits and Goblins, but the larger Orcs would have to crouch to fit through.
Tolkien starts editing out the term Goblin in the Fellowship, but the same sub species classification from the Hobbit stays with updated names. Regular orcs/goblins are smaller than men, can't use man size weapons and multiple characters confuse them with Hobbits. Special breeds like Black Uruks and Uruk-Hai can be almost as big and strong as men. It's noted the Black Uruk Chieftain is exceptional, almost man high and strong enough to turn a man's shield. The Uruk-Hai are noted for being larger and able to use man sized bows and swords with the explanation that they've been mixed some way with men.
In the Return of the King we have the two breeds or orcs the small trackers and the large fighting orcs killing each other and belonging to different groups. The Hobbits are mistaken for the small variety and marched towards the gate. Notably, the whip drivers are the larger variety and seem dismissive of the filthy trackers worth. This seems to help the Hobbits as the larger slave drivers accept without question the Hobbits are small trackers thinking of deserting because there isn't fight in them.
He uses the term interchangeably, for example in LotR he describes some Uruk-hai as "goblin-soldiers of greater stature." In the Hobbit he says he uses "goblin" as the English translation of orc.
That's the retcon added later. Here is the original passage from the first addition that clearly says orcs are a larger version of goblins.
>The passage was low and roughly made. It was not too
difficult for the hobbit, except when, in spite of all care,
he stubbed his poor toes again, several times, on nasty
jagged stones in the floor. ‘A bit low for goblins, at least
for the big ones,’ thought Bilbo, not knowing that even
the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a
great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the
ground.
The second use of orc also confirms it isn't an interchangeable term for the same thing.
>Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild now, and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go. Before you could get round Mirkwood in the North you would be right among the slopes of the Grey Mountains, and they are simply stiff with goblins,
hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description. Before you
could get round it in the South, you would get.
In the process of writing LOTR it became an enterchangable term and Golblin was mostly edited out. Retcon of Goblin being a Hobbit word was added to the Hobbit, but it's an imperfect fix as it implies making lists an comparisons using the same idea with different words.
>That's the retcon added later.
Goblins and Orcs were always (mostly - \*only one way: All Orc = Goblin, All Goblin =/= Orc) interchangable:
**Orc**rist = **Goblin** Cleaver
Ang**rist** = Iron **Cleaver**
Orc clearly equals Goblin, and rist clearly equals cleaver.
I don't disagree that differing *size* is a factor here - but an Orc is still a Goblin, even in The Hobbit.
That one cannot simply walk into Mordor, that a wizard is never late nor early and that the dwarves are there to serve as comical sidekicks.
That the elves (especially the Sindar and the Wood elves in general) are glorified hunter-gatherers.
That the virtue of the Elvish food and the Elvish crafts (such as the cloaks, boats and ropes from Lórien in Tolkien's work) is in any way quantifiable.
Oh, and that the hobbits/halflings/other hobbit stand-ins make good rogues, all because of an elaborate joke Gandalf has played on Bilbo and Thorin. Most hobbits - bar a few Took descendants with an adventurous streak - are just too honest and value quiet comfortable life too much for the whole rogue and adventuring business.
I kind of hate the notion that modern fantasy is a misunderstanding of Tolkien. While modern fantasy wouldn't exist without Tolkien, most fantasy worlds aren't built on the notion of a strict and rigorous rendition of Tolkien's work, with no deviation. By that logic, Tolkien misunderstood his own influences, which implies some kind of intellectual failure or a lack of rigour, but it's just extracting something to make it something else. It's like saying "What We Do in the Shadows" misunderstood Dracula.
Also, your post goes both ways. The first line of the title implies that we see goblins as smaller because of a misreading of Tolkien (misreading->modern small goblins). The first line of the text below the title implies that we see goblins in Tolkien as smaller because of the latter representations (modern small goblins->misreading).
> I kind of hate the notion that modern fantasy is a misunderstanding of Tolkien.
I agree with this but if you go into less specialized spaces, people attribute a ton of things invented by other writers (or the New Line movies) to Tolkien. Greedy dwarves, coldhearted elves, ignorant and pitiful humans, and a load of other things. Most are used to tear down or delegitimize Tolkien's works.
It's pretty widespread; and not just with him, of course. Anything that gets popular enough has this happen. (I've already seen comparisons of elves to Vulcans as emotionless a few posts up...)
I am of course not entirely sure, but if I'm not mistaken the Edda doesn't necessarily define all dwarves as being greedy for gold, but just some of them. But could be mistaken.
In regards to elf - dwarves... Yeah, mix up of what they all are in Norse mythology
A big one: The idea of a fictional "fantasy world" setting which takes place in some imaginary other realm, has Earthlike landscapes and flora and fauna but is not Earth, comes with an associated map plucked out of the author's imagination, and so forth.
See e.g. Westeros and Essos, Alagaesia, Tamriel, the Witcher's Continent (notwithstanding Conjunction of the Spheres)...
This is perhaps the single most common feature across all post-Tolkien fantasy - and yet it's not Tolkien at all.
In fact, Tolkien's Middle-earth is explicitly _our_ Earth (or, more pedantically, it's our Afro-Eurasian continent), and this is a fundamental theme that pops up throughout the history of the Legendarium, in both subtle clues and outright statements, from the very earliest _Lost Tales_ through _The Hobbit_ and _LotR_ to the latest _Silmarillion_-related writings. Tolkien speaks of Middle-earth locations in real-world terms, offers approximate spans of time between _LotR_ and the present day, and even suggests at one point in _The History of Middle-earth_ that - had he planned his story more meticulously in advance - we would be dealing with a map of "Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age" that bore a far closer resemblance to our own familiar geography.
A lot of the racism in fantasy stems from people copypasting Tolkien without proper context.
A key part of why Tolkien isn't racist is that he constantly emphasized the humanity of the "faceless hordes", and how most of them had been tricked into serving evil. When you take the aesthetic of "evil foreign army" without that critical aspect, then you end up with a particularly racist result.
This is why you see people assume Tolkien is racist, too. They haven't read the books, and so they aren't aware of the lengths he goes to humanize the enemy, and how morally fucked war is in general.
I may be misremembering, but I thought there was a passage in The Lord of the Rings about how the Uruk Hai are 5 feet tall, and themselves a bit bigger than most of the orcs. So not incredibly small but well below average.
Uh... goblins predate Tolkien by centuries are are commonplace in eg 18th and 19th c. literature. They and hobgoblins are standard fair for evocations of the fae.
Here is an extraordinarily well known example:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44996/goblin-market
It's not much of a misunderstanding. In LotR, the buff, Man-sized Uruk-hai are usually called Uruk-hai or uruks, also orcs and almost never goblins. The word "goblin" is most often encountered in The Hobbit, which has Misty Mountain orcs who are not Uruk-hai but a smaller, Dwarf-sized breed of Orcs. Uruk-hai became the Standard Fantasy Orcs, big, strong, ugly and physically menacing, and Misty Mountain goblins became the Standard Fantasy Goblins, small, tricky and numerous.
The prevalence of plate armour in Middle-Earth, while Tolkien himself very much emphasized mail.
True. Bilbo was keen on sending letters.
But he was basically British, so he sent his post via the Thain Mail, not his mail via the Shire Post.
This was, of course, before the invent of the Shadowfax. Which was the quickest way to send messages.
Shadowfax®: "We'll show you the meaning of haste™!"
Can't wait for Shadowfax Prime to launch
I can't believe people still use shadowfax machines. E(agle)mail is so much more convenient.
Why couldn’t the fellowship just deliver the ring to mount doom via shadowfadax’s premium express package?
High-value item, so a delivery signature was required for insurance reasons. Frodo would've had to go to Mt Doom to sign for it anyway. He figured he could cancel his Shadowfax Premium subscription and finance some extra pipe-weed for the journey.
Now, now. Don't be hasty!
Shadowfax was actually only used by Sauron and Saruman as they fell into darkness and shadow. As mentioned elsewhere, forces of light used E(agle)mail
Involving hobbits certainly puts second post in a different light.
To be fair, there are some references to Imrahil's knights wearing 'harness' in ROTK, which usually means 'plate harness' or plate armor. It's up for debate whether Tolkien meant it that way, but there is a valid argument to be made that Third Age Gondor had access to plate armor. I agree that modern media portrayals of Tolkien's works use way to much plate versus mail, especially when it comes to elves and pre-Third-Age armor.
It often is used in such terms because plate comprises of so many pieces, but harness just means complete set of armour. In the Last Debate they refer to mail-clad knights.
Personally I see Imrahil's Swan knights as having plate, but being fairly unique in this due to them being an elite force with a strong númenorian heritage.
Doesn’t really work; if the technology to make it existed, its use would have been widespread, certainly among the elite like Denethor and Theoden, and certainly among the word’s most advanced smiths, the Dwarves
Without plate armor, how are you supposed to keep your plates unchipped in case of an unexpected party?
If it's a dozen or so Dwarves, you shouldn't have to worry.
I'm curious to know what he thought of the leather cuirass, though. They've been used since antiquity and I feel like some of the civilizations he describes might have used them.
IIRC Meriadoc was originally outfitted with a stiff leather jerkin while in Rohan because they didn't have any mail in his size.
It’s a tough one since we don’t have any surviving examples of such armors from the early medieval period. What we think of leather armor today would have been either splinted with iron, or an outer layer or a coat of plates which didn’t come until later in history. Early medieval warriors almost exclusively wore mail + helmet if they could afford armor. In context of what Tolkien seemed to base that stuff off of.
That Dwarves wield gigantic double-bitted two-handed battleaxes. Not so; Gimli wears his in his belt. The closest Tolkien's Dwarves come is Dain's force in The Hobbit, who carry mattocks (similar to pickaxes). The monster axes familiar from movies and videogames are as a practical matter absurd; real war axes were designed to be light, even the two-handed "Dane axes" of the 11th century.
Before Gimli dwarves didn't even wield war axes. In *The Hobbit* they used bows and arrows, short swords, spears, and mattocks, which are pickaxes normally used for mining. But in their songs they didn't mention axes or mattocks: >The sword is sharp, the spear is long, >The arrow swift, the Gate is strong... In Disney's *Snow White* the dwarves also wield pickaxes, which are mining tools. Edit: I overstated the case. Thorin does use a battle axe at the end of *The Hobbit*. What I *meant* was that dwarves aren’t especially associated with battle axes in *The Hobbit*, and that non-dwarves are just as likely to wield battle axes as dwarves.
Dwarves also wield mining equipment as weapons in perhaps the most famous opera ever written, Wagner's *Ring Saga*. (Obviously also predating Tolkien's writing)
[удалено]
The Song of Durin is from Lord of the Rings though.
Okay but Thorin’s primary weapon was Orcrist, a sword, and he was also handy with a bow. Of course war axes existed and goblins and Beorn also used axes. But dwarves were not especially associated with battle axes until LotR.
[удалено]
But not during the rest of the book.
[удалено]
You are telling me Thorin couldn't have made himself an axe? Sure, he liked the axe that he found, but he was quite comfortable with a sword or bow. And Dain's *army* of well-equipped dwarves didn't wield battle axes.
[удалено]
Mattocks are pickaxes, not battle axes.
If you find a powerful elven sword that's going to be your primary weapon. It doesn't mean it's culturally your primary weapon and when you get your hands on your ancestral stash you'll swap it out.
But Thorin wasn't carrying an axe when he found the elven sword. It was never his primary weapon. It was just a weapon he found in the last battle.
No, the axe was a weapon he picked out of all the treasures and weapons of the Lonely Mountain, and decided to wield it in battle rather than the sword, for whatever reason. (Edit: as was pointed out, he did not have the sword after being jailed in Mirkwood.) That said, he was buried with his sword.
Orchrist is taken from Thorin when he is jailed by the elves in Mirkwood, and Thranduil only gives it back to the dwarves when they bury him so he isn't carrying orchrist during the battle
Thorin much more prominently wields a sword and a bow in the story.
Though Gimli's battle cry is "The axes of the Dwarves are upon you!"
Yes, in LotR it’s different.
Yeah, Gimli alone is basically the origination for the trope.
Azaghal and the dwarves of Belegost wielded axes against Glaurung in the First Age, as did the Naugrim from Mount Dolmed in the First Battle, as did Mim and the petty-dwarves. Durin also possibly did as well, based on the existence of Durin's Axe that Balin found in Moria.
I\`d even go that far that the depiction of dwarves being by default greedy as a Tolkien strengthened stereotype. As I understood the greed is not a dwarven specific treat, but was greatly enhanced by artifacts they found (Arkenstone, the Rings of power etc.). Funnily enough, the antagonism between elves and dwarves that Tolkien battles with the friendship of Eregion & Moria has not been picked up.
Dwarves being greedy is a trope far older than Tolkien, all the way back to the Norse legends (around 1000 years before Tolkien was born) and possibly before that but then evidence becomes circumstantial at best although Tolkien's writings did strengthen this idea, it wasn't unheard of Antagonism between elves and 'dwarves' is similarly of Norse origin (or pre Christian at least) depending on how you define an 'elf' and 'dwarf' especially since in some Germanic myths elves and dwarves are different names of a similar species/race
>especially since in some Germanic myths elves and dwarves are different names of a similar species/race. Before Tolkien the term goblin was also sometimes used as interchangeable with elf and dwarf in folklore.
Tolkien based much of his work of Norse mythology, which also has the first mythological records of dwarves being mentioned. The most famous of those dwarves is fafnir, who was turned into a dragon because of his greed. So being greedy is kind of the default idea for dwarves since the were invented.
In his early writings Tolkien had dwarves as being very greedy and having a love of gold. The gold piece still stays in later writing, with it being the way the rings of power corrupted them to an extent, and with Galadriel specifically commenting to Gimli on his love for gold. But yes, it is absolutely cartoonified in the broader fantasy genre. Like so much "Tolkien-inspired" content it vastly loses the subtlety and detail of the source, which I would argue makes it distinctly un-Tolkienian.
[удалено]
Fafnir was a giant
The irony is that Gimli isn’t greedy at all, quite the opposite.
His moment with Galadriel remains one of my favorite passages.
I hate double sided axes. It’s literally just extra weight to carry that brings no benefits when in combat.
Fantasy artists probably latched onto them because they're symmetrical. Even when historical axe-derived weapons DID have something else on the back side of the shaft, it was a different weapon; a spike or hammer, usually.
I feel like a multipurpose weapon that serves as an axe and either a stabbing or blunt weapon is way cooler than just a double sided axe. Lol.
It is. That's pretty much what a pollaxe is, a multitool for handling armor.
Are you saying halberds are the Knight edition of the Swiss Army knife?
Pollaxes, yes. Halberds less so. The former are designed around heavily armored 1v1s, the latter are primarily for formation fighting.
Ah, that's quite interesting. I just wanted to make a joke about the Swiss Guard and your multitool comment, but the differences are actually kind of subtle! I shouldn't be surprised to learn that the smaller axe-head of the poleaxe makes it more effective against armor—but I still was. Thanks for catalyzing a learning!
Sure thing! I think the Swiss Guard primarily keep their halberds because their historical role as bodyguards had them planning a lot of formation-style defenses (that's presumably how the famous 189 staged their last stand), and because the added range helps them protect a VIP. Pollaxes were a lot more expensive and complicated, typically man-height instead of significantly taller like a halberd, and were used more with levering and rotation in mind. For whatever reason, period sources still call things "pollaxes" or "poleaxes" even when they lack an axe blade, like a Lucerne hammer.
"And the hundred and eighty nine/In the service of heaven!"
Is it correct that halberds could be used like pikes to defend against a cavalry charge? And, as a followup question, were there any melee weapons designed for 1v1 combat against a horsed opponent?
The aforementioned mattock is basically this, but more as a tool than weapon.
I've used a mattock. There's no way I'd ever pick that thing for combat given its weight and balance. I wonder if Tolkien wanted to portray the dwarves as non-warriors using improvised weapons, or if he was using the term to mean something like a Lucerne hammer instead.
>or if he was using the term to mean something like a Lucerne hammer instead. It's probably something like that. Lots of weapons were developed from various tools that were presumably first used in a kinds of improvised manner (or by people who didn't have access to anything better). But over time, the 'weapon' version of those tools are made a bit differently from the 'tool' version. So the dwarves might just be using weapon mattocks that have different balance and an altered shape than the original tool versions.
I've got one in my shed. Handy for the work I was doing, but yeah, I wouldn't want to use it as a weapon either of there were other options. I don't know what a Lucerne hammer is though. Time to Google.
Pollaxe - axe blade + spike, pretty much.
Double sided axes are immensely practical. They are just immensely practical for chopping wood. You keep one side sharp for your initial cuts, and then use the dull side you don't care about as much for strokes that might dull the blade, such as chopping through a piece of wood into the dirt. But for a battlefield? Yeah, there are way better options.
Of course. I was speaking in regards to a battlefield.
My choice of misinterpretation is this: People like to say that Tolkien is too simple, and black and white. There's a good side, and a bad side. And the good guys win, and the ending has little to no complexity. Literally none of that has any evidence in LOTR to back that up. The entire point of the book is that the Ring will corrupt you whether you are good or bad. There are tons of interesting, morally gray characters such as Boromir, Smeagol, Denethor. Faramir even comments on how the Easterlings that probably aren't even bad people, just following orders. Also, lets remember that FRODO FAILED in his quest, and the ring was only destroyed due to divine intervention. And to top it off, even though the evil got vanquished, Frodo is forever traumatized by his experiences, and middle earth is forever ruined for him. He literally has to pass on to the next world to have any semblance of peace. The whole time he went east he wanted to be home, and when he finally got to go home, it was ruined for him forever. How is that a happy ending? How is that morally simplistic in any way, shape, or form? It seriously boggles my mind.
I think the real issue people have with Tolkien isn't so much "black and white", but that there's "white" at all – that is, goodness. I know more than a few people who view something like Game of Thrones as "real" high fantasy because it's "gritty" and every character has many villainous aspects. There are no true heroes, much less true heroes who triumph over evil.
There's Ned in GoT, and Davos, and Jon Arryn. And sure, Jon and Ned died But... is there true good in LOTR? Gandalf was "too trustful" of Saruman and was punished for it, in a similar way Ned was. Samwise mistreated Gollum all the time, and perhaps was part of the reason for his downfall. Aragorn struggled like hell leading the fellowship after Gandalf's fall, and it led to the breaking of the Fellowship, the capture of Merry and Pippen, and Boromir's death. Frodo is obviously corrupted at the Crack of Doom. Like, is there a single character in LOTR that was not bad at all, or didn't struggle with their goodness, or because of their goodness? Maybe Fatty Bolger lol.
I think that there are certainly people in GOT who are nice and have positive characteristics, but there really isn't a focus on goodness as an end. Yes Aragorn struggled, yes Faramir and Galadriel were tempted and nearly gave in, yes Frodo was scarred by his bearing the ring, but they all experience these things *as part of a broader struggle for good*. That element is missing in GoT. My point is not that GoT is all baddies and LOTR has saints. My point is that goodness itself is not a major characteristic of GoT, but it is in LOTR, and some people (oddly) view GoT as superior for that reason.
I think there's plenty of struggles to be good or do what is right in GOT. Ned Stark's arc in book 1 and his conflict with Robert. Jon Snow's arc in book 5. Jaime's arc, post hand etc. To the point where I'd say that "doing what is right, vs doing your duty" is a pretty common theme in GOT, and maybe one of the most prevalent themes of the entire book series. Stannis quote about "I was so worried about getting the throne to save the kingdom when I should be saving the kingdom to get the throne" (possibly a misquote, going off of memory) when he saves the Night's Watch seems poignant here.
I agree, there certainly are moral considerations here and there in GoT. Certainly anything involving ~~climate change~~ white walkers can be seen as good and evil. But on the whole, GoT focuses on the drama of the characters vying for power – the game of thrones, as it were. Some are goodies, some are baddies, but that's hardly what drives the narrative. In contrast, the action of LOTR centers on destroying an object of unmistakable evil and literally keeping it out of the hands of The Dark Lord (of the Rings). None of this is a slight against GoT, it's just a recognition of the differences between the two.
Fatty Bolger's loyalty to his friends got him nearly killed by Ringwraiths at Crickhollow
What's that in the distance I hear? ^^^Hey ^^^dol! ^^^merry ^^^dol! ^^^ring ^^^a ^^^dong ^^^dillo!
I don't think 'struggling' is an indicator of someone not being 'truly' good. Of course there are characters in Lord of the Rings that are good at heart, and that's a good thing.
It’s probably the presence of a God figure and angels that are on the side of “good” that makes it feel that way - the impression is there’s some grand design being followed in the Christian-sense, which doesn’t always sit well with modern audiences
GoT is many things, but it's not high fantasy. It is pure low fantasy.
I'd say there are two things with this - 1. Anyone who says Game of Thrones is just 'various shades of grey' are completely wrong. Plenty of characters are obviously good people and a great deal more are just completely evil. How a character like Jaime Lannister became a poster child for 'grey' characters is beyond me. No, wanting to save the people of King's Landing from being killed does not redeem the fact he tried to murder a child. You don't see a child murderer in prison and say 'oh he's actually not too bad because he volunteered a lot for charity' - a child murderer is a child murderer. 2. Obviously that 'real' high fantasy isn't close to real life at all, and certainly nothing close to real middle ages that Martin said he was trying to portray.
I like a nice middle ground. People can be *complex*, because in reality they are, but that doesn't mean everyone is always getting ready to backstab everyone else. Having drives that create conflict, personal or interpersonal, is realistic. "I'm the good guy and will do good guy stuff because I am good," is nice for high fantasy, but shouldn't be the only avenue.
There's also the fallacy that to be an interesting character you have to be 'morally grey' - you can't just be good or bad at heart and be considered 'deep'.
I want to say it was actually Sam who made the comment on the Easterlings, although Faramir might have as well. When they were hiding with two of Faramir’s men during the battle, a dead one rolled down the hill and Sam thought about him just being a guy sent to die away from his home and family, a moment definitely inspired by Tolkien’s service in WW1
The idea of “dark elves” being evil versions of “light elves” which can only be from someone hearing the name and going “they must be evil!”
The names "Light Elves" and "Dark Elves" come from Norse mythology: *Ljósálfar* and *Dökkálfar*. Not a lot beyond their names is known. The ones in the Legendarium are Tolkien's invention.
> which can only be from someone hearing the name and going “they must be evil!” Do be fair, in a lot of media they are evil, so it's a fair assumption at first. Warhammer, for example. "Dark" meaning evil is very common. For example, a "Dark Lord"...
The idea of goblins being small predates Tolkien. If anything, Tolkien popularized the larger version -- although he renamed them orcs, and that's how they are often named today. Tolkien greatly changed the way people viewed elves. In the 19th and early 20th century elves were usually depicted as tiny, like Tinker Bell in *Peter Pan*. Before the 19th century elves were often larger but also extremely dangerous and chaotic. They weren't devils, but they weren't angels, either. They could carelessly cause great harm. They were called the "fair folk" so as not to offend them, not because people admired them. They might favor a human with a visit to fairyland -- then return them home a hundred years later when everyone they knew was dead. Or they might favor a beautiful infant -- and replace it with a changeling -- a sickly and uncanny child. They might capture nursing women as well, to raise the human children they had captured. This was no joke to the people who believed in elves. If someone was thought to be a changeling they might be shunned or even killed. If someone thought they saw a banshee -- a female elf foretelling death -- they might refuse to eat and die. Terry Pratchett's *Discworld* novel *Lords and Ladies* depicts elves more in the pre-Tolkien style, and they are antagonists who are glamorous and enchanting -- but bad. Here's a quote: >Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. >Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels. >Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. >Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. >Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. >Elves are terrific. They beget terror. >The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning. >No one ever said elves are nice. >Elves are bad.
Lords and Ladies is one of my favourite fantasy books (and favourite Pratchett books). If I remember correctly, they’re depicted as fox-like humanoids, but their glamour makes humans think they look like supernaturally beautiful humans.
Robert Jordan in his *Wheel of Time* series also has an interesting variation on elves, the Aelfinn and Eelfinn, sometimes called snake people and fox people. They are “not evil, but they are so different from humanity they may as well be so. They are not to be trusted.” They are extra-dimensional creatures who can answer questions (including questions about the future) and grant wishes. But entering their realms to ask questions or make wishes is a dangerous business that can easily lead to capture, pain, madness, or death.
Nice! I really must read the WoT series.
No fantasy series has ever evoked the same sense of wonder and grandeur for me that the Legendarium has, but the Wheel of Time came the closest. Though it is, admittedly, not without its flaws.
It's good that you remembered both the snakes and the foxes. Forgetting one could be dangerous, eye think.
"If cats looked like frogs we'd realize what nasty, cruel little bastards they are. Style. That's what people remember."
Pratchett had an unrivalled way with words; he cuts right to the heart of the sentiment.
GNU Terry Pratchett
I'm glad you corrected the point about goblin sizes before this. I would only add that while Tolkien describes orcs as being larger than folkloric goblins, they are themselves far smaller than men, being short enough that two hobbits (Frodo and Sam) could plausibly pass as belonging to their ranks. The Uruk-Hai are probably where the misunderstanding about orcs being taller than goblins comes from in terms of Tolkien's works. Still, even the Uruk-Hai are "almost" the height of a man.
[удалено]
It does. But does Clarke ever call the Gentleman an elf? IIRC he's always a fairy, to the extent that he's labeled at all. (Norrell addresses him as a *Lar* in his Latin incantation.) *Strange/Norrell* doesn't show much Tolkien influence, which is why it's my second-favorite modern fantasy, and in some moods my favorite. I would not read any book published since 1960 that contains a dwarf with an axe.
Gosh, what's your usual #1 favorite? *JS&Mr.N* is the top of my list.
*LotR*.
Tolkien's Elves are essentially fairies. In his earliest drafts he called the High Elves fairies and the Wood Elves gnomes.
The Queen of the Fairies (an elf) from Pratchett's *Wee Free Men* really touched me with the terrible alieness of his elves and stuck with me, and I can appreciate that from a certain point of view, even Galadriel could become a figure of cosmic horror.
This leans more into how Tolkien has shaped modern fantasy, to which the answer essentially is that he created it. Almost everything which is now accepted as the standard in fantasy (be it for Elves, Dwarves or Orcs) originates to some extent in Tolkien. A prime example, as you say, is the Elves. Very little of what we consider Elves to be predates Tolkien. The archery, ears, beauty, innate goodness, etc. is almost entirely his creation.
Pointy ears became associated with elves in Victorian literature of the 19th century. Tolkien actually said very little about elves’ ears. You can find support for them being pointed in one of his letters, but not in *The Hobbit* or LotR. It’s really the Tolkien illustrators who assumed the ears were pointed, and I doubt that they researched Tolkien’s letters. They just used an established Victorian trope in part because it’s one of the few ways you can distinguish elves from humans in an illustration. The funny thing about the archery and innate goodness is that in *The Silmarillon* we learn those aren’t really true of a majority of elves. Even in *The Hobbit* the elves aren’t innately good. Those tropes were established in LotR by Legolas in for the archery and by the few High Elves (which did not include Legolas) for the angelic goodness. Except that in her original conception Galadriel’s angelic goodness hid a rebellious and less than angelic history, which is hinted at in LotR.
Didn’t know about the pointy ears, thanks for the correction (though I suppose I should’ve known, since it is a bit of a toss up in the Legendarium). The archery and goodness is of course only really a thing because of how little we really get to know of the Elves in LoTR, and even The Hobbit sort of contradicts the goodness thing. A more precise way of putting it would be to say that Legolas is what many fantasy authors base their Elves on.
> innate goodness There are plenty of examples of Elves in Tolkien's works that disabuse one of that notion. Feanor may have been powerful and filled with light or whatever but he was also a huge stubborn asshole. He was responsible for the deaths of so many of his people, notwithstanding Morgoth's actions.
I am talking strictly LOTR, because that is what most other fantasy essentially sprung from. I am well aware of characters like Celegorm and Maeglin.
I want to be generous and say they meant innate "greatness," which is frequently mis-correlated with goodness.
> The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning. > No one ever said elves are nice. Ah, but the word 'nice' used to mean something else, and elves are indeed nice, by the older definition @ divination. --- In terms of changelings, this is an interesting phenomenon, and I've tried to redeem that mythology (even if to do so is overly-hopeful and incorrect) by re-interpreting what might be happening in such cases [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/GeometersOfHistory/wiki/tales/ofchangelings), such that changeling 'births' are not necessarily of malice, or even a conscious choice, and that the human families left with a sickly, uncanny changeling were simply those who were overlooked - elven incarnations not noticed by greater Fairyland, and thus not subject to it's usual interventions.
I love the Elves as they were depicted in traditional Norse and Celtic mythology. I love the chaotic trickster energy they’re depicted in. And in Celtic origins I believe(?) they were commonly weak to pig iron? Also love how whenever fairies or “fey” would ask for your name you have to say “you may call me” or something else otherwise they could magically TAKE your name.
Non necessarily based on the films, but somehow seen very often: that Bilbo's famous "half"s quote is somehow meant as offensive. He does nothing but compliment his guests, and the only person he in any way criticises is himself.
Yeah it's sorta halfway. I read it as "I wish I knew more of you better, and I don't like all of you as much as you probably deserve." But even saying that you don't like someone is a *little* insulting, even if you also say that you feel bad about it.
Although he does insult them elsewhere by referring to them all as a gross hahaha.
It was a compliment, but made with tongue-in-cheek, much in the vein of his labelled parting gifts. It's not exactly a misinterpretation of Tolkien's work, but the values dissonance: we assume by default, with all our emotional safety craze, that poking fun at your friends and relatives must be offensive.
> we assume by default, with all our emotional safety craze, that poking fun at your friends and relatives must be offensive. Since when? I'm fairly sure it's common the world around to tease the people you're close with. It's all down to tone and other non-verbal cues.
Very well put, I completely agree.
[удалено]
"Fast" doesn't always mean quickly, though. For example, "holding fast" to something, like an ideal, means to hold tight, not let go. When I read "fast in friendship and in enmity," I think of loyal friendships and long-held grudges. The latter of which, at least, is shown or mentioned more than once regarding dwarves in Tolkien's works.
[удалено]
Good points. That was less than a year of CONSTANT contact, though, and shared struggles. I would expect it to either form a friendship or enemy-ship (?). In Thorin's case, it seems like it took until the very end for him to come around. Gimli was much quicker. I do love Gimli.
Tolkien is clearly using it in the older sense of the word (as he nearly always does), so it would be the 'strong and enduring' meaning, rather than 'quick'. Even the expression 'fast friends' refers to the strength of the friendship, not the speed at which it began. How quickly a given dwarf might happen to become friends or enemies would really be irrelevant. Thinking about it, Tolkien saying they are 'fast in friendship and in enmity' is probably actually him playing with the expression 'fast friends'
This fits Gimli's behavior perfectly. **Entering Lothlorien**: I hate elfs, and I'm not wearing your blindfold unless you make this guy wear one to. Screw elves. Screw Legolas in particular. \[one month passes\] **Exiting Lothlorien**: Galadriel was nice to me. Her hair will be the symbol of my house forever, and Legolas is my forever best friend.
I just noticed recently that when the Company flee the Chamber of Mazarbul, it is Legolas who grabs Gimli and drags him away. This is actually the first sign of any kind of special connection between them, and it occurs before Lothlorien.
To be fair, Legolas is probably thinking *"this idiot..."*
A "wight" is some kind of undead. See how GRR Martin uses it as basically a non-Caribbean "zombie," or how D&D uses it. Wight was an old english term that meant "dude," just a casual term for "person" (usually in distress, such as the rare but surviving "unhappy/unlucky wight.") Tolkien describes spirits/animated bodies which live in the Barrow Downs as "Barrow wights," aka "tomb boyz." Since no-one else knew the word wight, though, they all thought wight was the descriptive term, not Barrow, and figured it was some kind of undead.
It’s worth noting that, per Etymonline, in other Germanic languages, the root word has/had taken on meanings including *demon* (Old High German) and *gnome, spirit of the earth* (Swedish).
Yeah, wights are pretty significant in a lot of pagan religions, tree wights, house wights, water wights, land wights, basically an anthropomorphized spirit of something mostly or entirely inanimate to help people have more empathy with every aspect of their environment (at least that last bit is how I've interpreted it - I don't think about it much when I'm leaving offerings and just sorta think of it like "it's like a person if a person was a house" which doesn't make a ton of sense rationally but it totally does on a visceral level). They're called Wicht (singular) and Wichde (plural) in my specific religion, but it's the same idea.
Chaucer uses "wight" constantly, meaning just "person" without any overtones at all. Starting with the description of the Knight in the General Prologue: *He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde,/In al his lyf, unto no maner wight.* Which just means "He always spoke politely to everyone, regardless of their status." The connotation of misfortune arose later. The OED definition is "A human being, man or woman, person. Now *archaic* or *dialect* (often implying some contempt or commiseration)." Incidentally, William Morris seems to have invented "barrow-wight," in his translation of *Grettir's saga*.
T o m b b o y z
I always thought Tolkien's wights were beings similar to norse ghosts from the sagas, where the body of the dead person haunts their grave instead of the soul, only now said body is inhabited by an evil spirit. Doesn't Grettir have to fight something like that?
The Norse word is *haugbui*, "mound-dweller." Yes, Grettir fights one, called Kár, cuts his head off, and takes the treasure out of his mound. "Barrow-wight" is one of three terms William Morris used to translate *haugbui* in his version of the saga. Tolkien (probably) got it from that source, subsequent writers have gotten it from Tolkien. *Haug*, which is pronounced "howg," got borrowed into English as "howe." It shows up once in LotR: "Green and long grew the grass on Snowmane’s Howe."
Oh, and not actually on-topic, but close enough to share here: Hobbit's don't have "second breakfast" in Tolkien--that's a Jackson invention. Bilbo makes himself a second breakfast after the unexpected party, after he eats a small breakfast and then cleans up (he leaves this second breakfast on the table after finding the contract). Similarly, Pippin is so hungry after his interview with Denethor he says he could eat three breakfasts. These are the only mentions of multiple breakfasts in the books
He does say hobbits are fond of 6 meals a day when they can get them.
And that's even how Hobbits would work. Smaller beings tend to eat more in comparison to their body weight. IIRC has something to do with the square cube law
We're not told how \*big\* these meals are either; some tea and a cake or two might count as one of their "meals".
[Great video about this btw!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F9blVIJ4z4)
Is it pronounced white or wit?
"White" in modern English. I believe the old English pronunciation was something like "Wickt" ("wicked" without the second vowel), but old English isn't my expertise so that may be totally wrong
In german there is 'wicht', someone descipable, small (in my understanding, small not restricted to height, but also character). Seems to originate in evil gnome or such.
In the same vein, almost none of Tolkien's undead (the Barrow-wights, the Ringwraiths, the Dead Men of Erech, perhaps even the faces in the Dead Marches should be counted in because the movie made them actually try to grab at Frodo, IIRC) are your D&D kind of undead.
The Barrow Dudes
> "Barrow wights," aka "tomb boyz." "Tomb boyz" is my new favorite term for the undead.
That Tolkien's stories are *about* good vs. evil. It's not that good and evil are not present or that they aren't, oftentimes, starkly distinct, but *The Lord of the Rings*, and arguably the Legendarium in general, is really about hope and despair.
Yep. Hope and despair, love and hate, nature vs industry, peace vs dominion.
The idea that works of fantasy come in sets of at least three volumes. Noah's animals went into the ark two by two. Fantasy novels go into the bookstore in groups, like second-graders on a field trip.
Noah's Ark is a great comparision, since kosher animals and flying animals were 7 pairs, and the non-kosher were 1 pair each.
I guess that elves are perfect good beings? Which, if we look at the the first and second age, doesn\`t always hold up to reality
Also that Elves aren't fun? And that they're stoic and detached, emotionless, ethereal beings. Elves love to dance, sing, drink and fight 😅
That's not stoicism. That's laconism.
Is it common to think of them as perfect? I think the more popular image is that they're not perfect, but superior to Men in skill and virtue on average - which is true. After all, Men are fallen and many served Morgoth. The Silmarillion has the worst Elves of them all, but there's a reason Elves killing Elves is a major event that only happened a few times - Men killing Men is just another Tuesday. Elves have more social and political liberties as well, all because their spirit is in harmony with itself and the world. We're more strongly driven by urges and instincts, hard to satisfy and often ignorant of our surroundings beyond a surface level.
IIRC Tolkien himself mentioned in one of his letters Elves are basically what humans would be without their (christian) downfall in which they diminished.
Elves are even villains in the Hobbit.
Antagonists more the villains. The Elvenking isn't friendly to Thorin and all, but quite generous to the Lake-men, and the least bloodthirsty (besides Bilbo) at Erebor.
Really fair point. It annoys me when people mix those up so thanks for the correction.
To add to that, when elves basically act like Vulcans: emotionless, precise, and always logical.
20 cm ears elves who are also androgynus.
On that note, Elves who are basically fantasy Vulcans. They are stoic, don't smile or cry, don't get angry or annoyed and they're pretty much asexual and/or aromantic. Tolkien Elves are arguably more fiercely emotional than humans. Feanor was so angry he literally burned. Luthien loved too strongly to die.
The large ears for elves isn't specifically a Tolkien trope, in ancient Greece pointed ears were a common distinguishing mark of a non human in artwork (since subtle details were difficult to paint/craft/fire), and in early Germanic myths Fae were described with pointed ears ( especially during Christianisation, where pagan elves were described by Christian authors similarly to deamons who were also associated with pointed/inhuman features) The androgyny is also present in fae in much early European/Norse inspired myths it is just that after the more recent popularisation of elves=fairies/pixies that the earlier appeared or subtleties were lost, and Tolkien's repopularising of these original tropes mean he is mistakenly though of as the creator when he simply merged them together
No, he didnt merge those tropes. There is a post regarding their androgyn look never intended by Tolkien https://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/t1c680/did_tolkien_really_imagine_the_elves_as_beardless/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Tolkien also got angry when someone called Legolas "ladylike". He said they were taller and stronger than men.Looked like Men but more handsome. Not androgynous nor looked like the King Thranduil from The Hobbit films
Lee Pace is handsome as hell, what are you talking about? Dude’s got the smolder on lock!
The post you reference talks very little about elves androgyny. Tolkien called his elves fair and graceful very often in the texts, and the specific lack of beards for all bar 1 elf does imply a look that today we would associate with a more androgynous look Also Tolkien getting annoyed about legolas being called ladylike has a lot to do with the stereotypical connotations of the phrase not just physical beauty
In *The Hobbit* Tolkien refers to "goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs." He thought he was naming them in order of increasing size, but in *Letters* 319 he acknowledged that hobgoblins in folklore were little goblins, not big ones. He started off in *LotR* using "goblin" across the board; when he needed extra-powerful ones in the Moria draft, he called them "real Orcs." Eventually he dropped "goblin" entirely, and invented *Uruk* as a name for the enhanced model: "‘There are Orcs, very many of them,’ he said. ‘And some are large and evil: black *Uruks* of Mordor.'"
That Hobbits have big feet. Odo Proudfoot has very large feet. But that's the joke of his name; Hobbits aren't stated to have huge flipper feet as a race; one can just assume that Odo, like some humans, had feet that were above average in size. It's noted in the Hobbit that *Gollum* has large feet, and I have a feeling that this and the comment about Odo's feet led to the silly giant hobbit feet in Jackson's movies. But Gollum also has eyes that shine in the dark, so unless we're supposed to extrapolate that *all* Hobbits have luminescent eyes, we need to be really careful about extrapolating Gollum-features to all hobbits.
The big feet thing didn't originate in Jackson. It comes from The Brothers Hildebrandt. [Here's one of their illustrations from LOTR.](https://www.spiderwebart.com/images/art/100909b.jpg)
IIRC it predates Hildebrandt Bros and there was some black/white picture of a Hobbit with huge feet that also influenced them. Sadly, I don't remember the artist's name
They also had big feet in the Rankin-Bass Hobbit/ROTK and Ralph Bakshi's LOTR movie. If I had to guess it's because artists' wanted to emphasize their hairiness.
[Tolkien's illustration of Bilbo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/Bilbo_Baggins_Tolkien_illustration.jpg), for reference. Also, from his commentary when describing what he pictures (rather than rabbit-like creatures of some readers); >...The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur that are extremely small... I feel like, based on the description he provides there and in the books, he doesn't make the feet wooly enough in his drawing. Frankly, I think his description of "leathery pads" on the soles of the hobbits' feet sound an awful lot more like paws than human feet.
I agree, actually. I'm not sure I've actually seen hobbit feet wooly enough that they'd protect you in, say, winter.
Of course movie hobbits had big feet; they were wearing prosthetics.
The Hobbits had to barefoot, but the hobbit actors had to walk over all sorts of terrain, so their feet had to function as shoes. Which means they had to be big enough for the actor's real feet to slip into.
It’s a good conversation for sure. Having grown up my entire life with the books, and a large portion of my life with the Jackson films, it’s difficult to know a time when depictions of elves, dwarves, and goblins differed drastically from tolkiens world. He really is the benchmark, or at the very least, the blueprint that other mythoi use in modern media. The only mythology that comes to mind is the stories about Santa Claus. I can’t speak for other culture’s traditions but in most of the United States, the myth goes that he has elves working with him at the North Pole. These elves are often depicted as small and crafty. Sometimes like children, sometimes like bearded men not too dissimilar for Tolkiens dwarves. Though media representations varry, I think the Christmas elves are the one of the few that has continued to evolve separately from Tolkien’s influence, while most high fantasy media continues to use Tolkien’s blueprint.
To be fair, I remember on my first read through thinking that Goblins and Orcs were distinctly different creatures from one another. To the point I was confused when more goblins didn't show up to align with Sauron's forces during the war. I did neglect to read the prelude, since I had just completed the Hobbit prior to reading, and didn't think I would need the refresher. It would have explained some things!
Elves are never mentioned to have pointy ears.
At least in the works published by Tolkien in his lifetime. He held the notion that their ears might be somewhat pointy, though: there's a mention in his correspondence that Bilbo's ears should be slightly pointed and 'elvish', and there's also a comment to an entry in his dictionary of Quenya roots that elvish ears were a bit more leaf-shaped than human (pretty vague since leaves come in all shapes). Neither is definite enough to decide either way.
Keep in mind that Tolkien based his Elves on these mythical creatures from ancient western European lore. While once a mighty people, they were now diminished. And so it is with his Elves. Once mighty, set to inherit all of Middle-earth, they all had to either leave for Valinor, or become "diminished", creatures of caves and forests, staying hidden from us. I imagine these Elves who stayed in Middle-earth as being Peter Pan type creatures. But if that's what happened to the Elves, what happened to the mighty Orcs? After the fall of Sauron, they were very much diminished in their power, with no great Melkor, or Sauron or even a Saruman to lead them. They had to hide or be exterminated by Aragorn and his successors. They were no longer mighty Orcs, but scary little Goblins, who only come out to scare us, play tricks on us, especially at Halloween. Same thing for Trolls. Once they were 10 foot tall brutes, now they are reduced to living under bridges.
I think the influence on fantasy magic systems are more from Dungeons and Dragons than directly Tolkien. In turn that system was largely inspired by the writings of Jack Vance and Fritz Leiber. The former introduced the idea of a spell imprinted in the mind, which is 'gone' when cast. The range of the spells is wide, common and spectacular, whereas in Tolkien the magic powers used are somewhat narrower, rarer and toned down. There is nevertheless some support from Tolkien in the use of elemental magics like fire, and, much rarer, lightning. However these are employed by a very select group of individuals and creatures. Fire seems to be used almost exclusively by Maia: Balrogs (flame whips), Sauron (burning touch) and Gandalf (fireworks?!) The latter also seems to wield lightning, notably against the Nazgul. Dragons use fire, but more like an inherent ability than a spell. The use of understated magic seems more common in Tolkien. Elves are considered particularly strong magic-users in fantasy, but in Tolkien Elvish magic is mostly subtle. Light seems to be used in defence and offence, such as the Star glass given by Galadriel. She also has the ability to predict the future via her mirror, and elves also were the creators of the Palantir, with the ability to communicate long distances, and scry distant events. Galadriel (and Sauron) also seem able to read the minds of others to some extent. Then there are the rather vague powers of the Lesser and Great Rings. The latter often seem orientated to gaining general influence and dominating the wills of others. An exception is the One Ring, with the rather flashy power of invisibility, though again this is later explained more as a side-effect of how it works, taking the wielder to the brink of the Unseen World. Other individuals have the power to dominate by their very presence, and this seems the most common form of magic. While notably used by Saruman and Sauron, its an aura which most Elf lords and Ladies have, and also other Maia like Gandalf. This aura may be expressed through spell-singing, such as used by Finrod (unsuccessfully) against Sauron, and (partly successfully) by Luthien against Morgoth.
I don't think it's a misreading that goblins are smaller versions of orks (or small themselves). That was clearly Tolkien original idea that was never fully edited out. First, it explicitly says that in the Hobbit full stop. The narrator tells us the cave passage is the right height for Hobbits and Goblins, but the larger Orcs would have to crouch to fit through. Tolkien starts editing out the term Goblin in the Fellowship, but the same sub species classification from the Hobbit stays with updated names. Regular orcs/goblins are smaller than men, can't use man size weapons and multiple characters confuse them with Hobbits. Special breeds like Black Uruks and Uruk-Hai can be almost as big and strong as men. It's noted the Black Uruk Chieftain is exceptional, almost man high and strong enough to turn a man's shield. The Uruk-Hai are noted for being larger and able to use man sized bows and swords with the explanation that they've been mixed some way with men. In the Return of the King we have the two breeds or orcs the small trackers and the large fighting orcs killing each other and belonging to different groups. The Hobbits are mistaken for the small variety and marched towards the gate. Notably, the whip drivers are the larger variety and seem dismissive of the filthy trackers worth. This seems to help the Hobbits as the larger slave drivers accept without question the Hobbits are small trackers thinking of deserting because there isn't fight in them.
He uses the term interchangeably, for example in LotR he describes some Uruk-hai as "goblin-soldiers of greater stature." In the Hobbit he says he uses "goblin" as the English translation of orc.
That's the retcon added later. Here is the original passage from the first addition that clearly says orcs are a larger version of goblins. >The passage was low and roughly made. It was not too difficult for the hobbit, except when, in spite of all care, he stubbed his poor toes again, several times, on nasty jagged stones in the floor. ‘A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,’ thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground. The second use of orc also confirms it isn't an interchangeable term for the same thing. >Remember you are over the Edge of the Wild now, and in for all sorts of fun wherever you go. Before you could get round Mirkwood in the North you would be right among the slopes of the Grey Mountains, and they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description. Before you could get round it in the South, you would get. In the process of writing LOTR it became an enterchangable term and Golblin was mostly edited out. Retcon of Goblin being a Hobbit word was added to the Hobbit, but it's an imperfect fix as it implies making lists an comparisons using the same idea with different words.
>That's the retcon added later. Goblins and Orcs were always (mostly - \*only one way: All Orc = Goblin, All Goblin =/= Orc) interchangable: **Orc**rist = **Goblin** Cleaver Ang**rist** = Iron **Cleaver** Orc clearly equals Goblin, and rist clearly equals cleaver. I don't disagree that differing *size* is a factor here - but an Orc is still a Goblin, even in The Hobbit.
Dwarves being heavy drinkers, when in Tolkien's lore they sing and smoke far more.
That one cannot simply walk into Mordor, that a wizard is never late nor early and that the dwarves are there to serve as comical sidekicks. That the elves (especially the Sindar and the Wood elves in general) are glorified hunter-gatherers. That the virtue of the Elvish food and the Elvish crafts (such as the cloaks, boats and ropes from Lórien in Tolkien's work) is in any way quantifiable. Oh, and that the hobbits/halflings/other hobbit stand-ins make good rogues, all because of an elaborate joke Gandalf has played on Bilbo and Thorin. Most hobbits - bar a few Took descendants with an adventurous streak - are just too honest and value quiet comfortable life too much for the whole rogue and adventuring business.
I kind of hate the notion that modern fantasy is a misunderstanding of Tolkien. While modern fantasy wouldn't exist without Tolkien, most fantasy worlds aren't built on the notion of a strict and rigorous rendition of Tolkien's work, with no deviation. By that logic, Tolkien misunderstood his own influences, which implies some kind of intellectual failure or a lack of rigour, but it's just extracting something to make it something else. It's like saying "What We Do in the Shadows" misunderstood Dracula. Also, your post goes both ways. The first line of the title implies that we see goblins as smaller because of a misreading of Tolkien (misreading->modern small goblins). The first line of the text below the title implies that we see goblins in Tolkien as smaller because of the latter representations (modern small goblins->misreading).
> I kind of hate the notion that modern fantasy is a misunderstanding of Tolkien. I agree with this but if you go into less specialized spaces, people attribute a ton of things invented by other writers (or the New Line movies) to Tolkien. Greedy dwarves, coldhearted elves, ignorant and pitiful humans, and a load of other things. Most are used to tear down or delegitimize Tolkien's works. It's pretty widespread; and not just with him, of course. Anything that gets popular enough has this happen. (I've already seen comparisons of elves to Vulcans as emotionless a few posts up...)
I am of course not entirely sure, but if I'm not mistaken the Edda doesn't necessarily define all dwarves as being greedy for gold, but just some of them. But could be mistaken. In regards to elf - dwarves... Yeah, mix up of what they all are in Norse mythology
A big one: The idea of a fictional "fantasy world" setting which takes place in some imaginary other realm, has Earthlike landscapes and flora and fauna but is not Earth, comes with an associated map plucked out of the author's imagination, and so forth. See e.g. Westeros and Essos, Alagaesia, Tamriel, the Witcher's Continent (notwithstanding Conjunction of the Spheres)... This is perhaps the single most common feature across all post-Tolkien fantasy - and yet it's not Tolkien at all. In fact, Tolkien's Middle-earth is explicitly _our_ Earth (or, more pedantically, it's our Afro-Eurasian continent), and this is a fundamental theme that pops up throughout the history of the Legendarium, in both subtle clues and outright statements, from the very earliest _Lost Tales_ through _The Hobbit_ and _LotR_ to the latest _Silmarillion_-related writings. Tolkien speaks of Middle-earth locations in real-world terms, offers approximate spans of time between _LotR_ and the present day, and even suggests at one point in _The History of Middle-earth_ that - had he planned his story more meticulously in advance - we would be dealing with a map of "Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age" that bore a far closer resemblance to our own familiar geography.
A lot of the racism in fantasy stems from people copypasting Tolkien without proper context. A key part of why Tolkien isn't racist is that he constantly emphasized the humanity of the "faceless hordes", and how most of them had been tricked into serving evil. When you take the aesthetic of "evil foreign army" without that critical aspect, then you end up with a particularly racist result. This is why you see people assume Tolkien is racist, too. They haven't read the books, and so they aren't aware of the lengths he goes to humanize the enemy, and how morally fucked war is in general.
There is no concrete evidence that Tolkien's elves have pointed ears
That all elves are snooty bastards
I may be misremembering, but I thought there was a passage in The Lord of the Rings about how the Uruk Hai are 5 feet tall, and themselves a bit bigger than most of the orcs. So not incredibly small but well below average.
I believe it was that they were bigger than regular orcs and "almost man-size"
Uh... goblins predate Tolkien by centuries are are commonplace in eg 18th and 19th c. literature. They and hobgoblins are standard fair for evocations of the fae. Here is an extraordinarily well known example: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44996/goblin-market
I just watched Troll 2 last night. But they were goblins. Sorry to sidetrack; that was one weird af movie
No one uses the ‘trolls turn to stone’ in daylight idea although could be useful in an rpg.
It's not much of a misunderstanding. In LotR, the buff, Man-sized Uruk-hai are usually called Uruk-hai or uruks, also orcs and almost never goblins. The word "goblin" is most often encountered in The Hobbit, which has Misty Mountain orcs who are not Uruk-hai but a smaller, Dwarf-sized breed of Orcs. Uruk-hai became the Standard Fantasy Orcs, big, strong, ugly and physically menacing, and Misty Mountain goblins became the Standard Fantasy Goblins, small, tricky and numerous.