|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 6, 2009 11:03:40 GMT -6
Hobbit Ears___________________________________________ Reply Message 1 of 3 in Discussion From: Merlin the mad Sent: 9/11/2002 3:41 PM Peter Jackson made the Hobbits with pointy elvish ears. Yet it seems quite clear that Halflings are related to men, not elves. Why did PJ give the Hobbits in the movie pointy ears? Half-elves and orcs are obviously going have them, but why Hobbits? ___________________________________________ Reply Message 2 of 3 in Discussion From: sparrow Sent: 9/14/2002 11:17 AM It seems like I remember reading somewhere in the Hobbit or LotR that Hobbits have slightly pointed ears. ________________________________________ Reply Message 3 of 3 in Discussion From: MSN NicknameGreenleaf68 Sent: 2/26/2004 3:56 PM I know it's been months since this discussion took place but I'm new to the group, so I've just read it. A few days ago I found an essay on the net about whether the Elves do or do not have pointed ears and at the beginning there's this excerpt from Tolkien's Letters #27 about hobbits: "I am afraid, if you will need drawings of hobbits in various attitudes, I must leave it in the hands of someone who can draw. ...I picture a fairly human figure ... fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown)." If someone is interested in reading the whole essay (remember, it's about Elves not hobbits) they can go to tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Ears.html I hope I put the link right. I found it interesting, it has evidence and arguments in favor of pointed elven ears and against pointed elven ears. Greenleaf
|
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 6, 2009 11:46:32 GMT -6
This is interesting, as MTM first observed, why should Hobbits have pointy ears?
I recall, at first in the LOTR, JRRT was playing about with the idea that the "woods-loving" Fallohides were "closer" to the Elves; the "riverside" Stoors closer to Men; while the Haarfoots (who once lived in the foothills of the mountains) were closer to the Dwarves -- "browner of skin, smaller, and shorter" -- although beardless! Were the Fallohides given pointy-ears to further emphasize their closeness to the Elves? But it seems, ALL hobbits, in JRRT's mind, had pointy ears; and then if this three-part division was the base of hobbit pointy-ears, one would expect the Haarfoots to be bearded! (seeFotR, Prologue, "Concerning Hobbits," pp 12 - 13 hardback version)
In the beginning of these tales, The Hobbit, I think Tolkien still had no real idea of WHO the hobbits were, just a "Little People," maybe not related to humans at all, but a fully separate species, like the dwarves. In the openning pages of The Hobbit, he even stops to answer this question: "what is a hobbit?" Apparently, even Tolkien, at this early date, was unsure. Only later as LOTR developed did Tolkien find it necessary to give a biological line of evolution for the hobbits, and here he finally decided to connect them with Men -- but this was after he had already, in his own mind, given his hobbits pointy-ears. (see The Hobbit, chpt 1, "An Unexpected Party," p. 10 hardback version)
Hmmm, LOL, do Leprechauns have pointy-ears?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Mar 6, 2009 14:44:27 GMT -6
Hmmm, LOL, do Leprechauns have pointy-ears? Absolutely, me boyo!  Which brings up another point. Personally, I was disappointed when I learned that Tolkien had made the Hobbits an offshoot of Men. To me, they had always been a separate race of little people, similar to leprechauns and pixies but with more of the realism and pseudo-historical context of Middle-earth. To say they're just a shorter race of humans takes away some of the magic for me. Similarly, I was a bit crestfallen after clicking that Elf ears link above and seeing that there is no conclusive proof that Tolkien's Elves had pointed ears. Again, part of the fantastical element of the Elves is lost for me if that's true. Does anyone else feel that way? That in enhancing the realism of his alternate history, Tolkien was drifting further from the mythical source material that appeals to you? Wow, that's way off topic. Sorry. To bring us back to Hobbit ears-- from the quotes in that Elf ears article, it seems that Elves and Men were biologically related somewhere centuries back in their evolution (hence their similar appearance and ability to inter-breed). Perhaps some of that Elvish strain survived in the genetic makeup of the Hobbits. |
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 8, 2009 12:02:28 GMT -6
RE Fredegar's: "That in enhancing the realism of his alternate history, Tolkien was drifting further from the mythical source material that appeals to you?"
AHhhh, very perceptive, Fredegar! This requires a full stop for some deeper reflection -- no doubt to be productive of a fair-sized essay... LOL!
For me, part of the great charm of The Hobbit was precisely its imaginative "otherness," the richness of meeting with entirely new creatures. The names of dwarf, elf, goblin, and dragon were all familiar, but their treatments in this initial Middle-earth tale presented them as if freshly minted to my mind. They were all evocatively magical; and I was never certain what their limits might be, where the story might take me, what the characters might next do. There was a delicious feeling of real discovery with every turn of the page, an excitement that led me beyond the confines of the "humanly" mundane. These creatures were NOT human, they stood enthused with a separate integrity, with unique personalities that answered to laws of behaviour that were not exactly those which measured the actions and motivations of Men. What great joy, to meet new peoples, to move beyond the confines of the "merely" human. History itself, in this alternative world, was freed from the shackles of our own "human realism." History in this early, imaginative Middle-earth could take twists that delighted me with their unexpected turns. Freedom was here, in The Hobbit, the freedom to develop a story that had no stifling constraints of "human-realism" to choke-out the innovative magic.
I should like to have seen Tolkien continue in this original vein (can we perhaps call it the "imaginative-magical" stance?), pouring forth a series of hobbit adventures through a landscape highly charged with "otherness," with unexpected revelations, and bold new wonders like those I found in the LotR chapters concerning Tom Bombadil, and to a lesser extent the pages relating the histories of the Ents. After the delightful Hobbit, too much of LotR was, for my taste, anthropocentrically arranged, too much was too "historically" accurate, too much the mere playing out of human politics in a familiar clash of empires, Dark vrs Light. All fine stuff in its own right, but not the "imaginative-magical" wonder -- of things cut free from the human base -- that I was really seeking.*
I understand, I think, the motives impelling Tolkien to drag his characters, his separate species back into a human mould, making his tale in LotR ever more human-based, ever more "realistic" in its history -- but it altered Middle-earth in ways I do not like, as you put it, Fredegar: "To say they're [hobbits] just a shorter race of humans takes away some of the magic for me."
___________________________
* I must hasten to say, that I like LotR very much, but in a perfect world should like a "perfect Tolkien" to have had the time to develop the alternatives: one, a wondrous "imaginative-magical" series of books based upon the "otherness" of the hobbits, elves, and dwarves; and the second, his "human-realistic" LotR as we have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Mar 9, 2009 18:18:10 GMT -6
I never thought of Hobbits as having their roots from the line of Men. They are more fun-loving and sprite-like to be of the manish variety. I never thought about it before but the Hobbits do seem more like Leprechauns without the magiccal abilities. Thanks for mentioning Leprechauns, Andorinha! lol!
Like any race, they have some human characteristics (basic shape--similar body parts and extremities) but they have their own special characteristics that stand out from humans. Well, their height and furry feet are very different from the other races (human, elf, dwarf, orc, etc.) I think on the whole they are more adaptable, easy-going, and friendly than other races in LOTR.
|
|
