|
Post by Sparrow on Aug 24, 2004 20:43:00 GMT -6
Tolkien criticized his friend and colleague C.S. Lewis for his talking animals in his Narnia Books (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe among others). Yet Beorn has horses who alert him to the arrival of strangers, dogs who walk on the hind-legs and carry things with their fore-feet, sheep who set the table, and Beorn talks with all of them. How are these animals of Tolkien's similar to and different from the talking animals of Narnia? Was Tolkien's criticism of Lewis fair?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyshore on Aug 25, 2004 14:17:24 GMT -6
I find talking animals of the type Tolkien objected to very annoying in children's literature. C.S. Lewis did not charm me with most of his creatures of this kind. Occasionally a talking animal is so well-characterized that I forget he is not human and can accept him as a real person, but most talking animals are silly, doll-like, anthropomophic furballs in human clothes. For some reason, I didn't find myself objecting to Beorn's animals. Maybe it's because we don't hear them speaking or see them wearing clothes and acting like dolls. Dogs have been known to walk on their hind legs (although not carrying things in their paws.) Horses do look knowingly into human faces, and seem to judge them. Most of what Beorn's animals do doesn't seem that far out of character, and I'm not embarrassed for them as I am for Lewis' mother beaver with her little apron.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Aug 26, 2004 8:43:54 GMT -6
Beorn speaks to his animals in a strange language, so they are not speaking a language that other people in Middle-earth would recognize. In that light, it is not as if they are really speaking. It seemed to me that they were speaking in some sort of universal animal language more or less.
The thought crossed my mind that these horses might be mearas since they are a very intelligent breed of horse to begin with. Gandalf spoke to Shadowfax and Shadowfax understood Gandalf. I can't recall off the top of my head if there was an instance when Tolkien wrote that Shadowfax spoke to Gandalf.
I have to admit that animals carrying trays filled with food was rather spectacular to my way of thinking! I know sealions can balance and spin a ball on their noses, so I suppose we could stretch it a bit here, too! lol! But I just took this all as faerie when I read it, so anything can happen there!
I did not mind Beorn's animals either and since I have never read any of the Narnia books, I cannot make a comment for or against C.S.Lewis. I guess if his animals were dressed in clothing, that would make them more cartoonish to my way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Aug 31, 2004 6:25:12 GMT -6
I wonder how Beorn acquired all of these animal friends of his. I don't think that horses, ponies, dogs, or sheep would befriend a bear willingly.
I imagine he could have acquired them while in his manly form and did not allow them to see him in his bear form until they were very comfortable with him as a man. Then he could have talked to them about his skin changing ability in that strange language and then changed right in front of them so they could witness it first hand! Then they would know which bear they could trust.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Sept 6, 2004 16:43:46 GMT -6
It does seen a bit hypocritical of JRRT to fault CSL for his "talking" animals, when such creatures feature so heavily in his own works. The Badgers in the various Tom Bombadil poems talk, display human-styled emotions, are motivated by human forms of avarice, and commit human styled felonies (assault, kidnapping, bully-ragging...).
Even in the early parts of LotR, Tolkien allows us to hear a Fox's human-styled speculations regarding the odd sight of three Hobbits passing the night outdoors: " 'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty queer behind this.'" (FotR: Three Is Company, p. 85).
There is also the matter of "talking" vegetation that JRRT used in his Bombadil poetry, and again in LotR with The Old Forest and the Ents. I am not sure, but ascribing human styled feelings, motivations, etc to plants might well be considered analogous to giving human characteristics to "dumb" animals?
Maybe Tolkien objected to the degree of "humanization" found in the Narnia tales? Maybe he objected to the books' overall presentation as being too much "children's" literature? He does not seem to have liked them at all if Letter 265, p. 352 is anything to go by: 11 Nov. 1964 -- "It is sad that 'Narnia' and all that part of C.S.L.'s work should remain outside the range of my sympathy, as much of my work was outside his."
But, JRRT seemed quite willing to accept the "talking," highly anthropomorphized animals featured in Kenneth Grahame's Wind in the Willows: see Letter # 77, pp 89-90. August 1, 1944 -- "I hear that there is just coming out First Whispers of the Wind in the Willows; and the reviews seem favorable. [It is] stories (about Toad and Mole etc.) that he wrote in letters to his son. I must get hold of a copy, if poss[ible]."
The use of anthropomorphized animals/ plants is of course an ancient and respected human tradition, with such tales frequently presented in the tribal legends of almost every human group. I think Tolkien was himself tapping into this tradition when he wrote The Hobbit, and it was not until sometime after he was well into LotR, 1940s - 50s, that he seems to have largely dropped this mechanism (except for Old Man Willow and the Ents). I think sometime toward the middle of his period of writing LotR, JRRT realized that he was no longer interested in writing a fantasy-fairy tale adventure, and that he now preferred to write an increasingly humanity-oriented, mythologized history. In this new theme, talking animals no longer had a place, and his talking vegetation had to be carefully portrayed so as not to become "cute" little flowers chatting with Hobbits...
|
|
|
Post by Greenleaf on Sept 6, 2004 17:43:55 GMT -6
Just a few comments on the other talking animals of Middle-earth: there are the Eagles, the spiders in Mirkwood, the raven Roäc that came and spoke to the dwarves in Erebor before the Battle of the Five Armies (and maybe others I can't now remember). I never found it odd that all these animals could talk; perhaps because I considered the fact another magical element of Middle-earth.
However, all the afore mentioned animals are not common ones. Gwaihir and his race were the Eagles of Manwë, the spiders of Mirkwood were Shelob's offspring, Roäc was from an ancient breed of ravens and was one hundred and fifty-three years old when he met the dwarves and Bilbo. It seems to me that these animals are more or less distantly connected to the Valar. Just like the mearas.
On the other hand, we could argue that The Hobbit is a children's story and Tolkien gave the animals the ability to talk in order to make them more familiar to children. However, he managed to do it in a plausible way that didn't make them seem anthropomorphic. So when you hear them talk you can just accept it as if it were the most natural thing.
I just now remembered another case in LotR: the black crows that flew over the Fellowship in Hollin, spying out the land. I can't recall if it's stated anywhere whether they were spies of Saruman or Sauron. But anyway, since they were spies, that means they could communicate in some sort of language with whom they were reporting to.
In conclusion, I think that giving the animals personalities and the abilities of speech and reason makes the world of Middle-earth a whole more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Sept 6, 2004 19:59:17 GMT -6
Being a multi-animal owner, I see that each of the seven horses and one pony we have all have different personalities, attitudes, conflicts that they demonstrate when we watch them. Some are more dominant, some are loners, some stand up for themselves and some don't, some are tough and won't let the others boss them around, some love their food, others eat just because they have to. Our pony can kick the butt of any of our horses, too, and yet he is very calm and docile around people.
The dogs and cats we have owned over the years also were all different from each other. They all have personalities. You can even sometimes read what they are thinking in given situations.
My kids have always gotten a kick out of me putting words into the animals mouths when it seems that they had something to say. My husband once said something about "the dang blah blah blah dog" (of course, this was much more on the lines of #$!#%&*&%%^@$# when he said it!) and I put the words into the mouth of our blue healer "Don't say 'dog' like its a swear word!" because that was the way she seemed to look at him when he was complaining about her.
So animals do sense things and react to things in their own ways which do seem as if they have human personalities and traits. Although they don't dress up in clothing (errr....unless the kids dress them up), they do have personalities and I don't think that Tolkien or Lewis or any other writer using animals should be criticised for using these kind of traits in their story writing.
OK....some stories using animals this way are more for children than others. But just because the animals are given a more vivid personality and life doesn't mean the story can only be for children.
|
|
|
Post by Greenleaf on Sept 7, 2004 2:46:21 GMT -6
Stormrider, I agree with you that animals do have personalities and feelings. I recently read a book supporting this, which you might find interesting. It's called When Elephants Weep. The Emotional Lives of Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Mason and Susan McCarthy. The authors' arguments are based on researches on animals. Reading this book, I was shocked to find that the majority of scientists do not accept that animals have feelings and accuse all those who support it for anthropomorphism. The book confutes these arguments and is very fascinating and touching.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Sept 7, 2004 5:44:23 GMT -6
Thank you, Greenleaf! I will have to look for that book and read it. It might explain a few things that I see in our barnyard. I work with a lady who has made the use of an animal communicator, too. The communicator comes to her barn and sits and watches the horses for an hour or so. Then the communicator will tell her what her animals have to say. Examples are: sore spots, past life, things the horse fears, how it got a scar, where it used to live, what things it did with other owners, etc. The communicator asks the horses questions by sending out picture images and she receives the answers back from the horse in picture images. It surprised me when she told me this and I have my doubts about it, but it also makes me very curious to try her out to see what Storm will tell her! lol! So far I haven't done that and the woman is not all that expensive either. My husband just rolls his eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Dec 31, 2006 10:55:19 GMT -6
Several years after this discussion -- I just recalled that there was one version of the early Silmarillion mythos where JRRT actually wrote it up as a combat between The King of Cats (the Evil forces?) and the kindly Hounds. Does any one else recall this, and have a book citation for it? I'd like to find out the date of this "animal" version of Middle-earth, and see if it came early on in the 1920s - 1930s when JRRT was supposedly still not so adverse to letting animals have human motivations and speech itself. When and why, did Tolkien move toward an ever more exclusive anthropological interpretation of his Middle-earth mythology?
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 1, 2007 0:29:35 GMT -6
Andorinha: Happy Birthday, by the way! I guess your dad and mom weren't out ringing in the New Year the day you were born. and Happy New Year, too!
Anyway, I've never heard of the story of the Cats vs the Hounds in The Silmarillion. You stumped me there!
Reading back over this thread...Desi and I have contacted that animal communicator and had her come talk to our horses! It was just bugging me and I thought I had to check it out first hand. The things she told us were so believable and she would not have had any way to know these things previous to visiting us!
Storm asked me if I was going to breed her and I told her I wasn't really planning on it. She was glad because she did not want to be *ahem* mounted. You see Storm is a loner and she does not really like other horses very much. She keeps to herself and kind of hangs out on the edge of the herd staying out of the way of their kicks and bites. (For the first two years of Storm's life she was on a ranch with 30-some horses and she was at the bottom of the pecking line). So when the communicator said this, it seemed very much like what Storm would say! The communicator explained artificial insemination and Storm said that would be alright.
Storm also likes to kick when she first comes into her stall to eat. It is sort of a defensive and protective habit she has--she loves her food and doesn't want anyone else to get it. I asked her if she did have a foal, would she hurt it because of her kicking. She said she would be careful not to hurt the foal but didn't think she would be a great mother in any case.
Storm also said that she wanted her stall walls to go all the way to the ceiling so that other horses in the stalls next to hers could not look over at her. This was exactly the kind of stall she was in when our Equestrian Drill Team performed at Balmoral Park. Storm loved that stall!
|
|
|
Post by Vanye on Jan 1, 2007 13:17:45 GMT -6
Yeah! I recall that story & I mentioned in a posting recently in reference to being something very different in Tolkien's writings. I liked it a lot when I read it & am now going to revisit it on my audio version of the Sil. Alas, cats & dogs as species' did not make the final cut! But I really liked it! There are other gems in the Sil which I'm also wanting to visit, mostly stuff which got left out in the end. Storm-a lot of horses get little habits like that-sometimes I think that it is to keep the humans on their toes! I worked at a kid's dude ranch camp as a horse wrangler one summer. Several of the horses had little quirks; such as the blood bay gelding who when he was relieved of his tie halter would zoom backwards out of his stall! Woe unto you if you were walking behind him at the time! There was a Standardbred filly w/prominent withers who could not roll all the way over so she would roll around on one side & then shift to a sitting position before laying down on the other side to finish the job! I had my own horse w/me & she was usually pastured at home. However, at camp she was stalled like all the others & so could not be coy about being caught like she did at home. So one morning she tried for revenge on me- as I started to mount she started to rear ,I pulled her head toward me to thwart her plans so she just dropped on her belly. Fortunately she did not land on me. I kicked her & got her up,inspected her & the saddle & led her around a little before mounting w/o incident AND THEN WE WENT TO WORK! Well Happy New Year to & all!!! Vanye
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 2, 2007 11:16:09 GMT -6
Stormrider and Vanye: LOL! Horses DO have varied personalities, and complex patterns of behaviour that mark them off as true individuals. I never fell for the anthropocentric scheme that said the thought/ personality of a human was a totally different thing from all the other animals, I look on it as a sort of sliding scale: slugs and coral reefs may appear to have such simple nervous systems as to be without thought, without personality, but maybe we are just too dull witted yet to devise methods of study that would allow us to see the evidence of personality that might be there? Now, when it comes to cats, dogs, horses -- LOL, the evidence of individuality/ personality seems overwhelming to me! In fact, most of my cats have always had better adjusted personalities, more self-assurance and sociability than any of my little brothers, and they were all potty-trained faster and more easily...
Vanye -- great! I paged through several of the HOME volumes looking for a Cat King, finding nothing, so I was starting to think I'd just made the whole thing up. Do you have a book reference for this "dog and cat" war version? I do not find it in the 1977 Silmarillion, so it must be in one of the earlier, accessory volumes. THANKS!
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Jan 8, 2007 16:59:35 GMT -6
LOL! All I had to do was continue my reading of The Book of Lost Tales - 1. In chapter two, "The Music of the Ainur," p. 47 and 52, "Tevildo" is mentioned as being "The Prince of Cats," but his character is not fully developed here. Is he a real cat, or is this just a metaphoric resemblance?
Apparently this character is more fully explained in BLT - 2, so does anyone have that particular volume available. Half my books are packed away and I cannot find the relevant tome, so was Tevildo a real cat? Beats me right now...
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Jan 9, 2007 17:45:39 GMT -6
I have both BLT 1 and 2. I will look into Tevildo and see what I can find. I'll be back...
|
|