Okay, I’m rereading Lord of the Rings in anticipation for The Two Towers release next month. I’m mostly done with Fellowship, but am confused on a few parts regarding the hobbits.
While in Rivendell, everyone is discussing the history of The Ring, and a bit about the hobbits and the Shire. Someone, Elrond I believe, mentioned that after the Last Alliance, men were forbidden to dwell west of the Brandywine. I suspect this was to prevent the Shire and the hobbits from being corrupted. Is this the case?
Upon being discovered in Luthien, Haldir mentions his suprise to see the hobbits, and that their kind had never been seen in the forest. But he makes a curious comment - that he didn’t believe that hobbits had yet inhabited Middle Earth yet. I took that comment to mean that the elves (or at least the Luthien elves) believed that hobbits were to arrive from somewhere and inhabit Middle Earth. What’s the deal with that? Maybe the Shire isn’t considered Middle Earth? That would make sense, as it seems that hobbits were generally known to exist by everyone except men (minus the Rangers and those in Bree).
Sorry, don’t have ROTK handy, so I can’t look in the Appendixes.
I don’t remember this part well enough to address it, and I’m away from my books at the moment.
In this case, “yet” is used in the sense of “still”. Haldir knew of hobbits from long ago, but the elves of Lorien hadn’t heard anything about them for so long that he assumed they were all gone.
Your first point: If by “after the Last Alliance” you mean “immediately after”, the restriction on the abode of men couldn’t have been to protect the Hobbits, as they did not cross into Eriador until well into the Third Age. (The year 1601 is ringing a distant bell here).
I do happen to have LOTR with me… after a quick glance at the indexes (Brandywine and Baranduin), I don’t see this mentioned anywhere. Anybody know the exact quote? I don’t recall reading anything like this…
I know that Aragorn enacted such a prohibition after he was crowned, but I don’t remember anything like this being discussed during the Council at Rivendell. I don’t remember it having anything to do with the Last Alliance, either.
Right – 1601 Third Age. I’ve just started re-reading LOTR, and the opening section about “Concerning Hobbits” talks about hobbits first crossing the Branduin (with permission of the king at Fornost) in 1601 – which became the first year in Shire Reckoning (SR 1).
You could, of course, say that it was Beren who was discovered in Luthien, but that would be a sex joke. And everyone knows there’s no sex in Tolkien.
As a side note, I’ve often wondered just where hobbits come from. Elves and Men were planned from the beginning in the Great Music. The Dwarves were created by Aule in his impatience for the coming of the Elves and Men. The Ents were created by Yavanna to protect the forests against Morgoth. The Orcs were perverted from the Elves by Morgoth. But where did the Hobbits come from? They appear to be the only speaking people who have no origin put down on paper.
<kicking a dead horse>
Well, if I was Haldir, and I was caught in Luthien, I would also express surprise at seeing the hobbits…
</kicking a dead horse>
The elves being perverted… was this known as fact, I seem to recall it being thought by the intelligencia (sp) but not known. The perversion is thought to be the best theory because it is claimed that Morgoth cannot create life. But I thought he did create something somewhere… I will have to try and dig it up.
And the hobbits, well they come from across the river, over that way…
Actually I think the Ents were to protect the forests against Elves, Men, and Dwarves.
She was talking to Aule about how she made the guardians of the forest, and the people he had created (dwarves) would be in danger if they harmed her trees, and he answered, “Yet they will have need of wood.”
Ya gotta love that marital bliss between Aule and Yavanna.
But the general consensus is that Hobbits are a race of humans. If you think about it, they’re not much different: They’re small, and their culture is different, but they have about the same lifespan, the same lack of “magical” ability, all the same “inherent” traits.
If you re-read The Two Towers immediately before seeing the movie, I hope you won’t be one of those annoying whiners who can’t see the movie for the book and have nothing to contribute to discussions except for bitching about what was added, subtracted and changed. (Note, Shalob has been moved to the beginning of ROTK).
(Hoping my post-movie reading will be a little less boring)
I’ve re-read The Hobbit and am just about finished with re-reading Fellowship, but I’m going to hold off on re-reading TTT. I don’t WANT to have an open notebook in my head, making notes about what’s different. I just want to enjoy the movie as it is. Then I’ll re-read the book to supplement what I’ve just seen.
Don’t worry, Equipose. I did the same last year, and I think it enhanced my viewing. It allows you to see more of the movie, and not have to worry about following along. The story is involved (obviously), and it’s best to know who everyone is. Jackson has done such a great job, it’s amazing.
By the way, I knew the thing about Shelob, but next time, you really need to use a spoiler. Pisses a lot of people off around here.
That’s good, I’m glad you feel that way. I read several different forums after the movie was released and your attitude, among hard-core Tolkien fans, seemed to be fairly rare. Even several people who liked the film wasted tons of time and effort whining whining whining (very different from commenting and discussing) about this and that and the other. Only the fact that they liked it made reading their junk bearable. The whiners who didn’t like the film were horrific to behold. They can still be found bitching in the Tolkien newsgroups. I go there every now and then to have a laugh.
I understand about spoilers, but this is EXACTLY the kind of change from the “book” that people irrationally bitch about. If someone hasn’t read the books, the name and what it portends will mean nothing to them. If they have read them, they should probably know about it in advance.
(“book” is in quotes simply because I know that Tolkien intended it to be one long story, and it was the publisher who split it up into three sections, which is another reason why I laughed at people who were aghast at Boromir’s death being moved to the first movie.)
IANA Tolkien fanatic, but my vague memories from too much Angband imply that Morgoth did create orcs, as well as trolls and dragons. I might add that all are speaking races, and the last two are certainly unaccounted for, creation-wise.
I seem to recall also that orcs were originally elves taken by Morgoth before the race was called to Valinor. The captured elves, through torment and whatever else Morgoth did to them, became orcs. I also seem to remember that trolls were derived from, or made in mockery of, Ents. I don’t remember about dragons, and I don’t have my copy of the Silmarillion handy (since I’ve only read The Hobbit, LOTR, and the Silmarillion, I suspect the answers lie there).
Sorry, Munch, but that’s a funny mistake. Lorien, not Luthien.