|
Post by Fangorn on Dec 22, 2007 16:18:53 GMT -6
I am of an opinion that a short synopsis is always a good place to start. After that, perhaps character descriptions, plot lines....protagonist/antagonist evaluations or......
just jump in wherever, lol
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 23, 2007 8:08:07 GMT -6
Ah, a good general-purpose format, Fangorn! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Dec 25, 2007 22:26:28 GMT -6
I have found nothing that definitely confirms my gut feeling that FGH has close ties with 'On Fairy-stories'. The only thing I found is that JRRT revised, added length and then read FGH to the Lovelace Society (the essay club) in Feb. 1938 because he hardly begun/wasn't finished with 'On Fairy-stories'. So the link I am seeing may only be that FGH is an example of a 'fairy-story' rewritten with the points he raised in the essay in mind or conversely, that Tolkien wrote the expanded FGH to help himself define some points of the essay.
What I did find was that others have compared FGH to everything, including the "kitchen sink". LOL Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Kings Coel and Lear. Check out the Google search: Google books, search parameters: "Farmer Giles" Ham. (Limited preview)
Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 27, 2007 0:18:29 GMT -6
LOL! Yes, I agree, Fan, apparently FGH can be so interpreted as to mean just about anything. I also was wondering, just after you introduced the idea a few messages above (RE; possible connexion of FGH and F-s) if FGH was an attempt on JRRT's part to practice the methodology he laid out in his essay on Fairy-stories. But, as you found in your latest research, FGH seems to have been completed in a publishable version before "On Fairy-stories" was finished. Of course, the connexion you were thinking about ("hunching about" sounds somewhat strange, grin) may still hold up. The ideas Tolkien formed for his F-s essay may have been in his head for quite some time before he actually got them worked out sufficiently for a public lecture version. So, he still might have decided to revise FGH to conform with his thought concerning the functional parameters of a fairy tale? On the other hand, it may simply be that FGH "after the fact" could be used as a good example (applicability again!) of his "Magical towards nature" interpretation of fairy stories -- as Richard Purtill puts it in his "J.R.R. Tolkien: Myth, Morality, and Religion" pp 36 - 37. (Google advance book search: books.google.com/books?id= c67OlM_n8roC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA36&vq=Farmer+Giles+of+Ham&dq=Farmer+ Giles+of+Ham&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&sig= tHXPbT2vHjSBbac336PoDU1tM5M ) Bar finding an explanatory note from JRRT, maybe we'll never know... Of course that does not have to stop any of us here at TR from discussing the "meaning, structure, devices, characters, motivations" etc. of this little gem. ******* In this regard, Stormrider, I think you are being unfair to poor old Garm, is he really a coward, or does he function quite well as an "alarm" (or "alarmed") dog? After all, he is not portrayed as an attack mastiff! Just as Bilbo was never meant to be a dragon fighter, Garm is not a warrior pup! Considering his breed and purpose, he howls loudly at the right times, acting properly as a frontline sentry -- and to give the alarm is all we can expect of him! (grining here!)
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 27, 2007 7:07:53 GMT -6
Well, I see what you mean about Garm, but he still wants to follow (far behind) in FG's footsteps and shine in his glory without being in the danger. But I can't blame Garm for being afraid of giants and dragons, who wouldn't be? Perhaps the warnings Garm set off with the barking is enough credit to deserve some recognition because without the warnings the town and Farmer Giles would have been unaware of the problems creeping up on them.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 29, 2007 1:30:29 GMT -6
Yeah, good Old Garm... Psychophantic, whining, and a bit of a scamp, but I actually like him. He is also another "talking animal" in the Tolkien corpus. Both The Hobbit and FGH were early ventures by JRRT, both had 1920's versions available as stories for JRRT's kids, and both were first conceived/ performed when the kids were under the influnce of the Dr Doolittle stories of Hugh Lofting, where speech with the animals figures prominently.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Dec 29, 2007 10:59:04 GMT -6
Who wouldn't like their animals to talk? I would love for my horses, dog and cat to talk--especially the horses! That would help me understand them better! lol! Mr. Ed could talk--and he had good advice for Wilbur Post, his owner, too!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 9, 2008 20:45:29 GMT -6
RE Stormrider's: "Who wouldn't like their animals to talk?"
LOL, I've had several cats who would, no doubt, tell tales -- distressing and embarassing for me... Still, I'd like to know just what it was they often saw in the shadowed corners, late at night. Something fierce, perhaps deadly from the way they stared, and tensed, bunched up tight for combat or sudden flight. I'd pick up a baseball bat, approach the dark zone cautiously, look high, low and in between -- nothing there that I could see. By the time I returned to question them, they had forgotten everything, and were busy licking their hackles into submission.
Then again, maybe I don't really want to know such things?
But back to FG:
What kind of hero is he? Good luck gives him an unexpected victory over a giant; which leads to the gift of a magic sword; which conquers a dragon and earn Giles both a fortune and a kingdom. The same formula is found in The Hobbit, isn't it? But by the time of LotR "magical devices" are seen as cheats, aren't they? Didn't Galadriel say something about the misuse of magics along this line? And I seem to remember a Letter in Carpenter's collection to that effect as well.
So would JRRT, in his later days, have considered Giles a cheat and a fraud?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 10, 2008 6:45:24 GMT -6
I don't think that Giles intended to be a cheat nor a fraud but just had dumb luck. The Giant did not see him nor realize that he was being fought by Giles. The Giant just thought it was flies, gnats, mosquitos, or whatever biting him. If the Giant had seen Giles attack him, I imagine Giles would be flatter than a pancake from the Giant's foot stepping on him!
The King didn't even realize he was giving away a magic sword. He thought it was just some old thing that had gathered dust on his wall and had no real use anymore. He had forgotten about his ancestor who had miraculously fought dragons with it.
I forget now, did Giles realize it was magic when he set out after the dragon the first time? Where is my book? I better go look up how he found out about the sword's attributes! (I am getting old and forgetful--I just read this story!)
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 10, 2008 7:26:53 GMT -6
I found the book! The townsfolk wanted Giles to go after the dragon and were talking about him being knighted by the King in order to go fight a dragon but Giles just wanted to remain a farmer. But the people decided just courage was needed to go face down a dragon and thought Giles had plenty of that.
Then the Parson came over for dinner and Giles took the sword out of a cupboard and it jumped out of its sheath, which was a good indication that it was more than an ordinary sword. The parson examined it and they saw ancient script on it in an old language.
The Parson took it home and went to his book shelf to see if he could find a book to see if the sword had been recorded in history somewhere. That was when he learned it was called Caudimordax or vulgarly called Tailbiter. It was owned by Bellomarius, a great dragon-slayer and ancestor of the King's.
Tailbiter would leap out of its sheath if a dragon was near and would not go back in until the dragon was slain.
How could I have forgotten this!
So Giles did know that it was a magic sword when he set out after the dragon. It must have been a comfort to know he had a magic sword on his side when he set out. Bilbo also knew his Ring gave him invisibility and he used it when he needed to be invisible to help his friends.
So what was your question, Andorinha? Would JRRT in his later days have thought that Giles was a cheat and a fraud?
Both Giles and Bilbo developed their self esteem and confidence while being able to use their magical device. They both acquired their magical device mistakenly and since they had to face enemies that were much stronger and fiercer than normal, I think they had the right to use what tools they had at hand.
Would Giles have had the courage to face the dragon if he hadn't known it was a famous dragon slaying sword? He did go off after the Giant without any special magic. Perhaps he would have gone after the dragon without a magic sword and just dumb luck. Maybe just standing and facing the dragon would have been enough with the right amount of courage.
But the dragon knew the sword and feared it, too. If it had been an ordinary sword, would the dragon have cowered before Giles as he did?
Magic is always a device that appeals to the reader. It makes for a more exciting and mysterious story. Perhaps the hero in a story would still have courage, bravery, and strength anyway without the magic, but it seems the magic always helps them get over the first hump of fear and timidity they feel when faced with terrible foes.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 11, 2008 8:26:30 GMT -6
I'll see if I can find some quotes on the use of "magical devices" from the Letters, where, I think JRRT developes this theme most fully. What I'm thinking here is that if we take Farmer Giles of Ham as a separate story, judge it only from its own point of view, Giles uses the magic given him quite properly. As you say, Stormrider:
"Both Giles and Bilbo developed their self esteem and confidence while being able to use their magical device. They both acquired their magical device mistakenly and since they had to face enemies that were much stronger and fiercer than normal, I think they had the right to use what tools they had at hand."
But, sometime, probably in the mid-late 1940s, maybe in the 50s, I think Tolkien became "super-critical" of his own work. He starts (I think) developing a concept of heroism that moves away from the Fairy Tale norms (such as those seen in The Hobbit and Farmer Giles of Ham, and injects a Christianized notion of the REAL hero as having to be "pure" and entirely altruistic, and socially useful, etc. So he classes Beornoth and Beowulf as old style, nordic heroes, but not good enough to meet his new criteria of REAL heroics. In this regard, I'm wondering if the "heroic" hobbit Bilbo, and Farmer Giles, would (in JRRT's new scheme) have to be somewhat demoted from being REAL heroes to simply being "traditional" heroes?
I'll have to do some more research here, and I'll develop this theme in the next couple of days...
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 12, 2008 8:25:50 GMT -6
Interesting. In a way, I agree that if you use your own skills rather than magic to conquer foes, then you are a truer hero than if you used the magic aids. I wonder how Bilbo and Giles would have progressed in their stories without their magic Ring and sword.
Although magic aids are so much fun for the reader.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 14, 2008 12:04:07 GMT -6
I think Tolkien got caught in his own trap here. In his early years, down to about 1940, he was trying to develop one type of hero, the "reluctant hero," the common-man hero who seems absurdly unheroic on the face of it. Bilbo and Giles both fit this type. They are unremarkable persons by themselves, still harbouring the seeds of heroism in their natal personalities, but inadequate to do the "normal" warrior heroic deeds required to get them mentioned in the songs and sagas. So, JRRT resorted to the common Fairy Tale practice of augmenting these unlikely heroes, by placing in their hands some devices of magic that would act as "equalizers." Bilbo gets a Lucky Ring of invisibility (it is not yet the One Ring), and he gets a sword of proof. With these devices, Bilbo's stature can become heroic, even in the restricted definition of heroic that was the Nordic saga default meaning - great warrior doing great physical deeds. Giles, with Tailbiter, suddenly has the enabling device that allows him to conquer dragons and win a kingdom.
Later on, sometime during his work on LotR, JRRT changed his concept of heroics once again, so that it seems he now viewed the use of "enabling devices" with some guilt and suspicion. His next "reluctant hero" types, Frodo and Sam, become more like "moral heroes," their real battles are more like psychological victories, victories of their own minds and wills -- although there are still some old fashioned warrior-heroics along the way (Sam with Shelob).
Given JRRT's penchant for re-writing his tales, I wonder, had he lived -- in a good, functional condition -- for another 20 years, would he have added this newer, moral heroic element to both Bilbo and Giles in some grand revision?
I'm still gathering my quotes, lol! More a bit later!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 17, 2008 23:34:05 GMT -6
Hmm, just thinking "out loud" here, but it seems to me that Frodo starts out his quest with a full complement of traditional "magical device" enhancers only to gradually lose them along the way before he can really become dependent upon them. He gives up his modestly magical sword, loses his "sort-of" magical mail shirt, gets to the peak of his danger to find even the phial cannot shine for him anymore in Samanth Naur, and of course, the most potent of his magical devices is the one he dare not use, the Ring. I wonder when (or even if) JRRT decided to make Frodo a "magic deviceless" hero? I have a "feeling" that the first chapters of LotR were written with the design that Frodo would be able to use magical devices all the way to the end of the book, but maybe somewhere after the chapters on Lothlorien JRRT decided to strip Frodo of all such "crutches" to make him a more purely self-sustained/ self-contained "moral" sort of hero?
Bilbo and Giles both got to keep all their magical devices all through their stories, and were allowed to profit from them "happily ever after..." Frodo does not even get a "normal" happily ever after ending, does he?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 18, 2008 6:58:52 GMT -6
Frodo's intentions were very good in taking the Ring to Mount Doom's fire. He knew he should NOT use the magic Ring. He was compelled to use the Ring a few times but luckily was stopped by Sam. JRRT was trying to avoid Frodo's use of magic during the quest and I think he used Sam as a "magic stopper".
But I have always been surprised that Sam actually used the Ring at Cirith Ungol which is right on the edge of Mordor! Why didn't the Eye of Sauron zoom in on Sam as it did on Frodo at Oroduin? Sam had the Ring on for quite some time while he followed Frodo and his orc captors. Not until they broke the three headed guardian's beam with Galadriel's phial did an alarm or anything go off!
|
|