|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 17, 2006 17:25:33 GMT -6
Great points you made Fredegar! Good link too...
It seems trolls can be alomst any kind of creature...small, big, one head several heads.....
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 17, 2006 18:25:46 GMT -6
I don't remember too many of the old fairy tales I listened to or read as a child as far as trolls are concerned. I remember the Troll under the bridge in the Billy Goats Gruff tale, but he did not turn to stone that I remember--he just liked to eat goats!
Reading about Trolls in JRRT's Middle Earth was the only real source of trollery that I ever really remembered as far as what they were like. I guess after reading Tolkien's The Hobbit, I just took it for granted that Trolls turned to stone in daylight.
I want to sit down and really read that wikipedia link that I posted. I just skimmed it and I was rather surprised at some of the things I did grasp in that quick scan. I will also check out your link Fredegar. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 18, 2006 6:53:18 GMT -6
I have to admit that Tolkiens Troll are really the only ones I read about so I just assumed that was what Trolls were, but I should have known that everyone else makes little changes in their creatures. For example; Tolkien's elves are like no other elves anyone else has written about, Elves are usually small, but not Tolkiens....
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 18, 2006 15:39:24 GMT -6
Hullo, Fredegar! Your information on the "ettins" is entirely new to me, so THANKS! The source you list eventually got me to www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft24.htmwhere they have a full version of the Red Ettin. I am continuing to find data that suggests trolls, traughs, traws, traus, eotens, jotuns etc. were probably all classed at one time as variations on the "giant" theme. At any rate, as you mention, Fredegar, Tolkien does seem to have standardized his trolls/ ents as leaning exclusively toward the gigantic. What I would like to know now, is when did "diminutive forms" get the name troll? As Fredegar point out, the trolls now come in many sizes (2 foot tall to 16 foot tall), many shapes (so far I've found up to a 15 headed troll!). It looks like -- from my bare acquaintance with the Norse sagas, and the Old English stories (like Beowulf) -- that traugs/ trolls were originally fairly sizeable creatures, larger than men. Somewhere along the line, I wonder if the term "troll" came to be more generally applied to any mischevious, possibly malevolent, non-human creature? If so, then, I think Tolkien was going back to the older idea of trolls being "gigantic," at least, more than man-sized? Does anyone know if Tolkien used "trolls" differently in his early versions of Middle-earth, or in his vaguely connected poems, and were they more variable in size, shape and character before 1930? He does, in The Hobbit, (still can't find my copy!) somewhere, mention a two-headed troll, doesn't he? In the early poem, The Stone Troll, the troll seems to be largish, but not stupid, and not without personality/ individuality, so that this troll, who beats Tom (maybe an early form of Tom Bombadil) seems akin to the personality-bearing trolls of the Hobbit more than a relative of the brutish, non-vocal trolls found in The Lord of the Rings. Maybe Tolkien's trolls go through a gradual evolution the way his Elves did? In some of his earliest poems, Tolkien used the 19th century concept of Elves/ Fairies as being no larger than bees and butterflies. I wonder if he also decided on having "large trolls only" after using diminutive ones earlier in his career as a fantasist? LOL! More questions than answers at this point!
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 18, 2006 16:38:25 GMT -6
We have to keep in mind that when Tolkien wrote about the Trolls that at one point Trolls were just Trolls and then Sauron changed them. So the Trolls in the Hobbit can understandably be different from the LotR Trolls.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 18, 2006 21:56:05 GMT -6
Desi: This is kind of "tossed-off" in a hurry, so I hope it makes sense and addresses your actual points, rather than just my interpretation of what I think you are saying...
Yes, if I am following your statement correctly here, Tolkien's trolls in the very early poetry (the first version of The Stone Troll goes back to the 1920's, I think) and in The Hobbit are outlined only in generalities so that the later versions of troll-character found in LotR can be quite different but still not completely inconsistent with his original troll concept.
What might help here is a definite statement as to the stock from which the Stone Trolls originated, and a specific date as to when they were first in existance. That is, how and when were they initially changed/ corrupted by Morgoth back in the First Age.
Secondly, just when did Sauron further alter the trolls? In the appendices of LotR, from my understanding, there is no specific time frame for Sauron's interferrences with the Stone-trolls. We learn that they existed before the Sun rose in the Elder Days, and that they were "of dull and lumpish nature and had no more language than beasts." Sauron then taught them "what little they could learn" of speech, "and in the Westlands the Stone-trolls spoke a debased form of the Common Speech." (RotK, appendix F, p. 512 pb). But, did Sauron teach "linguistic competency" to the Stone-trolls in the First Age, the Second Age, or the Third?
I think this is important because I am hypothesizing that Tolkien wrote with one concept of trolls in mind for his early poems and for "The Hobbit," a concept that was in many ways close to the personalty set of the common fairy-tale story like the Billy Goats Gruff and their troll (I think Stormrider first brought up this Billy-Goats model, thanks!). Later, maybe as early as 1941 or 42, as he was writing LotR in its first versions, he found that the fairy-tale type troll would not fit well with his more advanced designs of good and evil. But, he could not fully divorce LotR from its roots in "The Hobbit," so he altered his description of trolls without actually contradicting the Cockney speaking Stone-troll types like Bert, William, and Tom. The easiest way of doing this was to simply create a second main branch of trolls, a new-comer race that would have the characteristics JRRT felt would be more appropriate for the more adult-oriented LotR -- these were his Horog-hai, later renamed, Olg-hai, and then finally published in 1955/ 56 as the Olog-hai. (HOME vol. XII, "The Peoples of Middle-earth," pp 79-80)
I notice that throughout the LotR, references to trolls are made with the new Olog-hai type in mind, and we do not meet up with Stone-trolls who vocalize, who exhibit independent moralities (one of the Three expresses something like pity for Bilbo in "The Hobbit"). Instead, even the Cave-troll of Moria, has no lines, and is just incidentally used at the beginning of the battle in the Chamber of Mazarbul. Tolkien has very definitely changed his entire conception of trolls here, and it divorced him from the fairy-tale model that he had earlier used for William, Bert, and Tom.
This gave Tolkien some fits after LotR was published, as he recognized that his new troll-type no longer meshed well with that in "The Hobbit," or earlier fairy-tales. Consequently he had to come up with new origins for trolls, and had to figure out if he wanted them to be independent creatures with souls and minds of their own, or if they were to be Goelem-like (the Jewish avenger-robot of Medieval European legend) automatons, robotic tools and weapons moving about like ants under a chemical compulsion. (HOME X, pp. note #1, pp. 411-412)
In HOME, vol. X, "Morgoth's Ring," Christopher Tolkien collected his father's last thoughts on these matters and put them into Part Five, "Myths Transformed." Here, JRRT was playing with several ideas:
1. The Orcs would be the original troll-stock for the Stone-trolls,mutated by Morgoth to look vaguely like the Ents (the treeish kind, not the Anglo-Saxon eoten, giants!).
2. Later he proposed that the Orcs would be derived, not from Elves, but from Men, so that the trolls, both Stone-trolls and the Olog-hai would actually be corrupted, heavily modified Men.
3. Another alternative would have the Olog-hai, but NOT the Stone-trolls, being cross-bred from great Orcs and corrupted Men. The Stone-trolls would, presumably, still have pure Orc/ Elvish ancestry -- or be separate creatures made up of the earth -- and not really related to the Olog-hai trolls at all.
But all of these possibilities conflicted with some of his already published statements in LotR. So at times, JRRT would go back to his original concept of two main troll species, Stone-trolls and the Olog-hai who were "created" only late in Middle-earth history, sometime in the Third Age, and, these Olog-hai, MAY have come from Ent stock, or may have been unrelated to Ents but just "sort-of" looked like them, made up in mockery.
In yet one more alternate version of LotR appendix F4, JRRT originally stated that both the Stone-trolls, and the Olog-hai, whatever their origins and their characters, could not have been taken from the Orcs:
"That Sauron bred them [the Olog-hai] none doubted, though from what stock was not known. Some held that they were a cross-breed between trolls and the larger Orcs; others that they were not trolls at all but giant Orcs. Yet there was no kinship from the beginning between the stone-trolls and the Orcs that they might breed together; while the Olog-hai were in fashion of mind and body quite unlike even the largest of Orc-kind..." (HOME vol XII "The Peoples of Middle-earth," pp 79-80).
I get the strong feeling, from all of the above, that Tolkien was never quite able to fully satisfy himself as to the basic characteristics of his version of trolls (were they robotic tools or independent thinking creatures?), nor did he ever clear up in his own thinking just how they originated (from corrupted Ents, from native earth, from Orcs who were corrupted Elves, or from Men). LOL! No wonder we find it difficult to follow his lines of development of his own brand of trolls when compared with the earlier fairy-tale and saga trolls!
But, I do agree with you Desi, that during/ after 1940, JRRT was sort of forced to make a "flexible" kind of definition for his trolls -- so they can change character type, mental abilities, physical appearance, etc, to suit the new LotR role he has in mind for them to play.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Jan 19, 2006 4:49:11 GMT -6
Hullo, Andorinha. Glad I could help with the ettins. I like to keep tabs on obscure fantasy creatures, as it's useful for my own stories. What I would like to know now, is when did "diminutive forms" get the name troll? As Fredegar point out, the trolls now come in many sizes (2 foot tall to 16 foot tall), many shapes (so far I've found up to a 15 headed troll!). It looks like -- from my bare acquaintance with the Norse sagas, and the Old English stories (like Beowulf) -- that traugs/ trolls were originally fairly sizeable creatures, larger than men. Somewhere along the line, I wonder if the term "troll" came to be more generally applied to any mischevious, possibly malevolent, non-human creature? Stormrider's Wikipedia link mentions that "trolleri" was a kind of magic intended to do harm. It also says that in Norse myth, "troll can signify any uncanny being, including but not restricted to the Norse giants (jötnar)." Reading further, it seems that northern Scandinavia had the traditions of trolls and jotuns being giant monsters, whereas southern Scandinavia's trolls were more human-like and not as monstrous. "Troll" seemed to get mixed up with the huldra, the Scandinavian faerie folk, in some traditions. My guess is that the definition of "trolleri" referring to harmful magic caused it to be applied to a number of different creatures. I also found that in some Scandinavian fairy tales, trolls did indeed turn to stone in the day. So that answers my earlier question. It only applies to a few stories but at least we know Tolkien didn't invent that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Desi Baggins on Jan 19, 2006 6:31:21 GMT -6
I guess my point in my above statement was that Tolkien was able to use two versions of Trolls because he came up with idea that Sauron changed them or taught them. The more I think about it the more I realize he had to come up with something because the Hobbit was more fairy tale like and LotR was more adult and he did change his Trolls alot. From all the points Andorinha mentioned it seems that Tolkien wasn't really satisfied with how he explained the difference and maybe he was not even happy that they were different.
It is so funny because until this topic was brought up I never thought about how the goofy Trolls of the Hobbit were different from the speechless Trolls of LotR. Which also makes me wonder about the speech. In the appendix it says that Sauron taught them a language based on Common Speech...so why didn't the LotR Trolls talk? Shouldn't it have been the other way around...The Hobbit trolls nonvocal and the LotR ones able?
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 27, 2006 3:06:29 GMT -6
Desi: "In the appendix it says that Sauron taught them a language based on Common Speech...so why didn't the LotR Trolls talk? Shouldn't it have been the other way around...The Hobbit trolls nonvocal and the LotR ones able?"
Yeah, a good question! And I hope the following makes sense!
The primary point is that Tolkien used the more common talking, fairy-tale type trolls in 1934-38 when he wrote "The Hobbit." The cockney accented trolls were a delightful addition to that story, and fit in well with most readers' (especially the kids!) preconceptions of what trolls should be like. Later, when he was asked for a sequel, he did not feel like writing fairy-tale type narratives, but wanted desperately to do something more adult, and hopefully get his Silmarillion tales into print (see Letters). But the publishers wanted "more Hobbits." So Tolkien compromised, and gave them a more mature story line that could be more closely tied into the histories of his Elder Ages, his Silmarillion material -- but still it had lots of Hobbits in it to please the editors.
When he did this, he needed a new type of troll, one that did not really speak much (or at all), because, sometime in the late 1940s to middle 50s, he had decided that trolls might not be independent beings after all, but robotic extensions of Sauron's, hence, not really "speaking characters" in his play. But, Bert Tom and William certainly are independent creatures, and even have feelings beyond mere greed, gluttony, and anger. So, he was stuck with the talking/ feeling/ independently thinking trolls (William, Bert, and Tom) and he could not re-write "The Hobbit" to either leave them out entirely, or change them to the voicless automaton type trolls. His best way of smoothing this joint between "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit," was to add a simple note in the appendices to the effect that Sauron had earlier altered the original Stone-trolls of "The Silmarillion" (who do not talk to my knowledge) to become the talking trolls of "The Hobbit," and then either made a new species of troll, or altered some of the Stone-trolls to become the non-vocal Olog-hai of "The Lord of the Rings."
In this note (appendix F, RotK, pb pp. 511-12) he states that Sauron taught the original Stone-trolls how to speak -- hence Bert, Tom and William -- but he does not tell us WHEN this was done. As the trolls in "The Silmarillion" do not speak (or, at least I know of no occasion when they do), Sauron must have taught them how to speak some time after the First Age, presumably after Morgoth's fall. This leaves the entire Second Age, listed as being 3441 years long in Appendix B RotK, and the "Sauron-active" periods of the Third Age. Sauron is a mere spirit of malice from year 1 Third Age until about 1100. So, Sauron has, in the Third Age, the years 1100 to 2941 (2941 is the year when Bilbo meets the speaking trolls T,B, and W) in which to teach the originally voiceless Stone-trolls how to speak. So, 3441 SA + 1841 TA = 5282 years during which Sauron could have taught the original trolls how to speak. I imagine, he would have done this sometime in the Second Age rather than in the Third Age, but I can find no definite citation to back this up.
If this hypothesis floats, it would actually explain the chronological/ event sequence found in "The Silmarillion" (non-vocal trolls), "The Hobbit" (vocal trolls), and "The Lord of the Rings" where we return to non-vocal trolls, of the Olog-hai variety. So, in fact, Tolkien got it right, trolls in the Elder Ages (First Age anyway) are never mentioned as being able to speak. But trolls in the time of Bilbo could speak, having been taught this skill probably sometime back in the Second Age by Sauron. The latest, LotR trolls again, have no assigned speaking roles, although they could presumably talk when it was necessary* -- but, for Tolkien's purposes, it never was.
___________ *The Olog-hai, apparently could not handle the Common Tongue, the way Tom, Bert, and William did, but could still speak: "They spoke little, and the only tongue that they knew was the Black Speech of Barad-dur." (RotK, Appendix F, pb, p. 512)
___________
Fredegar: Thanks for the bit on trolls in the fairy-tales turning to stone before Tolkien used them that way. Tolkien apparently liked the idea of trolls turning to stone sufficiently so that even his Olog-hai may still have been petrified by sunlight, if I am interpreting his closing comments in appendix F correctly.
"Unlike the older race of the the Twilight they [the Olog-hai] could endure the Sun, so long as the will of Sauron held sway over them." (Rotk, F, p. 512)
Once Sauron's will and mind were elsewhere, I presume, even the Olog-hai would petrify if they wandered out into full sunlight. After Sauron's fall in 3441 Second Age, there could be no sun resistant trolls as, I guess, Sauron's will and power were too weak to protect his trolls should they enter the sun's rays. This explains why there were no Olog-hai until after Sauron's rebuilds his power levels in the late Third Age, possibly after the reconstruction of Barad-dur in 2951 Third Age. Only after Sauron has grown strong enough to protect the trolls, can they move in the sun without fear of petrifaction.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 27, 2006 7:32:02 GMT -6
If Sauron created the Trolls and Olog-hai, I would think that they would pick up language by being spoken to by Sauron, his lieutenants, and other slaves. You learn language pretty quickly if you get beaten and tortured because you didn't understand what you were told! But why would he teach them the Common tongue or something close to it?
In LOTR, Gandalf warns that should Sauron be successful in regaining his Ring back, all of Middle-earth would hear and speak the Black Speech. Why bother teaching the Common tongue unless Sauron wanted to send out spies to listen and gather information (which is what he did). However, Trolls are very large and not likely to be good spies because they would not be able to hide and be secretive!
I also like the fact that Trolls turn to stone when exposed to sunlight. I was very glad to read this:
This is another way for Sauron to control the Olog-hai and force them to do his bidding. I imagine once the Olog-hai had gotten used to being out and about during the day as well as anytime during the night, the idea of becoming just nocturnal beings was a draw back.
I wonder why Tolkien didn't just plain out create some other large creature for LOTR in place of his Olog-hai. (After reading Fredegar's list of mythical creatures on the Faerie Stories Origins thread, I see there are plenty of other creatures to model something from!) That way he would not have to justify his cockney-speaking Tom, Bert, and William!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 28, 2006 14:01:15 GMT -6
Paraphrasing Stormrider: 1) Why did Sauron teach the trolls the Common Speech instead of the Black Speech?
2) And why not create some other large warrior-type instead of sticking with the troll kind?
An excellent set of questions, Stormrider! I'll try to deal with the first: Did Sauron, in fact, ever teach the Common Tongue to the trolls? I do not think he ever did. So, from whom did they learn it? I think it was some other agency, quite beyond Sauron's control that handled that task.
We sometimes get the mistaken impression that Sauron was like an actual Devil, a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim Satan with full control at all times over all the minions of evil in Middle-earth. While he may have been able to dominate almost all the creatures of evil-bent who came into his presence, or lived nearby the seat of his power, even the lowly Orcs could escape his control by simply moving away:
Gorbag: What d'you say? -- if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses."
Shagrat: "Ah! ... Like old times." (Two Towers, pb. p. 441)
"Like old times." But what "old times?" If Orcs live no longer lives than Men, and if both Gorbag and Shagrat could remember from their own lives a time in which they had been able to live independently, with no "big bosses" over them, Sauron's control must have been much less extensive just 20 to 40 years before this scene in 3019 of the Third Age. Sauron's power also, even at this late date, does not seem to totally control even those Orcs living in Mordor and Minas Morgul, as they forsee only one difficulty in their plan to "slip away" and set up on their own -- what if the Elves and Men win the upcoming war?
So, I am thinking, if Sauron's control and his power to command obedience from his minions is still incomplete in 3019, how much less was his control in earlier periods of the Third Age? Suffering severely from the loss of his Ring, the initial 1100 years of this age saw Sauron diminished to the status of a "spirit of malice" unable to take form, unable to retain command of his once extensive empire, unable to seat himself in a fixed abode. In fact, as the scene is set in "The Hobbit" (as late as 2941 Third Age, the year of Bilbo's dragon-slaying trek into the east) Sauron has little or no control over the Stone-trolls, the Orcs of the Misty Mountains, or even the dragon Smaug. Sauron's power had not yet grown sufficiently for him to unite the trolls, the Goblins, and Smaug in a coordinated effort of war against the "free peoples" of Middle-earth.
It seems indeed, that Sauron is only capable of really exerting a renewed and extensive control over the "various peoples of evil" after 2951 when he re-established his seat in Mordor. So, I think here that we have a period of almost 3000 years during which many/ most of the Orcs, trolls and other creatures of evil were basically on their own, and able to develope largely independently of Sauron. During most of this period, Sauron would not be able to effectively enforce the use of the Black Speech. And, in Appendix F, under the heading "Orcs and the Black Speech" JRRT makes it clear that the Orcs never really liked the artificial tongue that the Dark Maia invented, and without his immediate presence, his directing control, they quickly fell back into the habbit of speaking a debased form of whatever language was common in their locale. In the west of Middle-earth, the Orcs soon spoke Westron, and I imagine those in the far east picked up some Easterling tongue, and those in far Harad probably spoke a Southron language.
This brings me to another important point -- just who actually taught language to the trolls? Was it Sauron? Somehow I cannot see him taking time out of his busy day to practice Black Speech verb conjugations with a classroom full of trolls. Certainly lower creatures would be responsible for this duty? In fact, the appendix F entry for trolls does little more than tell us that Sauron increased the wits of the original trolls so that they could learn speech. So who did the actual teaching? Orcs maybe?
"Trolls therefore took such language as they could master from the Orcs; and in the Westlands the Stone-trolls spoke a debased form of the Common Speech." (F, pp 511-12)
When Sauron was masterful, back in the Second Age, when he had enough power to control his minions and force large numbers of them to obey his every whim, I think it reasonable to assume that the Black Speech was taught and used. But, during the first 3000 years of the Third Age, the period in which Sauron had ineffective control over the evil creatures of Middle-earth, the Orcs soon slipped back into their old habbit of speaking a debased form of some local, common tongue -- Westron in the west. As each new generation of Orcs and trolls developed without Sauron's control, the Debased-Westron would become ever more exclusively their only tongue and the Black Speech would gradually be forgotten both by the Orcs and the trolls:
"It is said that the Black Speech was devised by Sauron in the Dark Years , and that he desired to make it the language of all those that served him, but failed in that purpose." (RotK, appendix F, pb. p. 511)
"So it was that in the Third Age Orcs used for communication between breed and breed the Westron tongue..." (RotK, appendix F, pb. p. 511)
The Goblins of the Misty Mountains, and the Stone-trolls of the Trollshaws/ Ettenmoors are good examples, I think, of just how independent the Orc and troll communities could become where Sauron had had no directing power. Both the Goblins and the trolls of the westlands were left on their own for some 3000 years to pick up whatever language they could. The Orcs learned Westron, and as they were the actual teachers of the Stone-trolls, they would naturally pass this tongue on to such creatures as William, Tom, and Bert.
It is only after Sauron reasserted himself, once he had re-established his might in Mordor (2951 Third Age), that he would be in a position to enforce the use of the Black Speech. At this time, he developed the Olog-hai as heavy-shock troops, and under his direct control gave them the ability to resist sunlight so they could move on campaign through areas where there might be no shelter from the Sun. These late-coming trolls would have no language at first, no historic, inherited Common Speech. Being more closely under Sauron's supervision (to protect them from sunlight) they would be taught only the Black Speech. In Mordor, where they were bred and lived until they were used in the campaign against Gondor, the use of the Black Speech, as an exclusive language, could be enforced quite easily as Stormrider points out.
Eventually, had Sauron regained the One Ring, he would have been even more powerful, and I think he would have moved again to force all his followers to learn the Black Speech so that it might indeed, as Gandalf feared, soon be heard in all the corners of Middle-earth.
Regarding your other excellent question: "I wonder why Tolkien didn't just plain out create some other large creature for LOTR in place of his Olog-hai?"
I have no ready answers. Maybe Fredegar, Desi, Orgulas or any other member of TR would like to field this one?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 28, 2006 15:42:14 GMT -6
Excellent reasoning. It does make sense that while Sauron was recovering his strength, that any of his evil minnions would pick up any number of languages during that time.
Another question, are Orcs' lifespans more like humans? I thought they were more like Elves' lifespans since they were corrupted forms of Elves. I would think Morgoth would have wanted long lived slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 29, 2006 2:29:54 GMT -6
Hmmm, mebbe we need a new "Orc Lore" topic? But would that come under "Creatures of Middle-earth," or "Peoples?" LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Feb 5, 2006 3:11:15 GMT -6
Just saw this last post. I'm game for an orc thread if you are. I think the "Creatures" forum would do fine.
As for why Tolkien didn't create a new race in place of the Olog-hai, he probably didn't want to be adding too many new species so late in the game. It was important to him that Middle-earth be consistent and realistic as possible. As such, breeding a new strain of troll would be a more logical idea than introducing a new species (ogres, for instance) that hadn't previously been referenced in his work.
Plus, with the concept of the Uruk-hai as a kind of "super-orc" race, it was logical that the Dark Lord would attempt something similar with his other servants, the trolls.
|
|