Chapter 2 - Roast Mutton

[Wraithguard]

I create this thread now because I wont be able to get on tomorrow and I do not wish to hold up the discussion. I am only midway thru the chapter due to my tight schedule but I do hope to become more involved in the discussions of further chapters. As I said, it is only too late to join the reading project when we finish the book, but it is never too late to join the discussion.

[DGoeij]

You know what? I had to get up at 7:30 to be on time for my first course of the day, I've had enough. My teachers didn't post any extra assignments on 'workspaces' anyway. :D I'll get into an hour worth of reading the Hobbit before dinner time and try to end chapter two before the weekend. *fingers crossed*

[baragund]

Whoo-Hoo! Glad to have you along, DGoeij :)

I'll get things started by describing my impressions and observations, and throw in a couple of questions...

I think this is the funniest chapter in the book. Bert, Bill and Tom are an absolute riot! ("You're a booby!" ... "Booby yerself!") So much so that I have a bit of a hard time thinking of them as villains. And are they really so evil? All they want is some good food and good drink. OK, OK so their opinion of "manflesh" being a good meal may complicate things a bit but that's a detail :D

I also love the little exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf when they are still at Bag End:

"That leaves you just ten minutes. You will have to run", said Gandalf.
"But - ," said Bilbo.
"No time for it," said the wizard.
"But-," said Bilbo again.
"Not time for that either! Off you go!"

Just a really neat little verbal thrust and parry that I never get tired of reading.

Here are a couple of questions for the detail-oriented among you:

1. I find the description of the company's journey through "hobbit-lands" into the "Lone-lands" interesting. There is no mention of the village of Bree here. Tolkien didn't think of it until he started drafting the sequel. But there is a description of "old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people". Could that have been a reference to where the old northern kingdom of Arnor split apart and one of the breakaway regions (Rhudaur, I think) became an evil place? Had Tolkien developed the mythology to the point where there were the two kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor when he wrote The Hobbit?

2. When the company was discussing what to do when they first saw the troll's fire through the woods, one of them said "These parts are none too well known, and are too near the mountains. Travellers seldom come this way now. The old maps are no use: things have changed for the worse and the road is unguarded. They have seldom even heard of the king round here, and the less inquisistive you are as you go along the less trouble you are likely to find."

What on earth do you suppose was meant with the "seldom even heard of the king" remark? This implies there is supposed to be a king somewhere but that clearly is not the case at this point in the history of Middle-earth. Do you think that is one of those little inconsistencies left over from when Tolkien intended this to be a stand-alone children's book?

[Inderjit S]

find the description of the company's journey through "hobbit-lands" into the "Lone-lands" interesting. There is no mention of the village of Bree here. Tolkien didn't think of it until he started drafting the sequel. But there is a description of "old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people". Could that have been a reference to where the old northern kingdom of Arnor split apart and one of the breakaway regions (Rhudaur, I think) became an evil place?

No. However, Tolkien was able to use these references to develop Frodo's journey and the history of these lands in LoTR, so it is the other way round, so to speak.

They have seldom even heard of the king round here, and the less inquisistive you are as you go along the less trouble you are likely to find."

Tolkien dealt with this in the prologue.

There remained, of course, the ancient tradition concerning the high king at Fornost...yet the Hobbits still said of wild and wicked things (such as trolls) that 'they had not heard of the king'

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

[octoburn]

1. I find the description of the company's journey through "hobbit-lands" into the "Lone-lands" interesting. There is no mention of the village of Bree here. Tolkien didn't think of it until he started drafting the sequel. But there is a description of "old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people". Could that have been a reference to where the old northern kingdom of Arnor split apart and one of the breakaway regions (Rhudaur, I think) became an evil place? Had Tolkien developed the mythology to the point where there were the two kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor when he wrote The Hobbit?
I'm not sure if the history was developed that far yet, but I'm sure they probably could have seen Weathertop from the East Road that they were travelling on, as Weathertop was pretty near it.

[DGoeij]

1. I find the description of the company's journey through "hobbit-lands" into the "Lone-lands" interesting. There is no mention of the village of Bree here. Tolkien didn't think of it until he started drafting the sequel. But there is a description of "old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people". Could that have been a reference to where the old northern kingdom of Arnor split apart and one of the breakaway regions (Rhudaur, I think) became an evil place? Had Tolkien developed the mythology to the point where there were the two kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor when he wrote The Hobbit?

I had the same feeling. From tLOTR we know of the existence of Bree, being a 'mixed' community. Then again, Tolkien always claimed that his writings about ME were based on the translations of books from there, most notably the one by Bilbo and Frodo (there and bakc again, etc. etc.). So perhaps we hear Bilbo speaking, who is as of yet quite ill-informed, so to him every ruin is 'a nasty castle build by wicked people'? And mayby Bree was just mentioned as another inn? Something I realised just now.

What I find strange is the fact that the party travelled apparently unarmed. Bilbo is no surprise, but at least Thorin and most likely some of the other dwarves, if not all, were veterans of many a battle with orcs and had travelled much to get to the Shire. I find it hard to believe that a party of dwarves this far away from home, travelling without any protection whatsoever.

That includes the very silly way in which thirteen dwarves are captured by three trolls. It took Thorin to lose twelve of his friends and relatives to become somewhat suspicious? :rolleyes:
By then he was all alone and not exactly a match for three trolls anymore. But why did they walk up to the light on small groups (if not one at a time), never gave a cry of warning and most unlikely, shouldn't they have become very supicious after just three or four did not return? Even for a children's story it sounds awfully silly when I read it now.

[baragund]

Here's a fun picture of the trolls....

[Inderjit S]

By then he was all alone and not exactly a match for three trolls anymore. But why did they walk up to the light on small groups (if not one at a time), never gave a cry of warning and most unlikely, shouldn't they have become very supicious after just three or four did not return? Even for a children's story it sounds awfully silly when I read it now.

The answer is actually quite simple, and I will provide a quote my Tolkien about it.

The answer is quite simple, and I bet some moron will quote me on this when I say 'The Dwarves were imbeciles, who were lower down in the evolutionary line than one legged rats, but somewhat above Italians.

The Dwarves were in fact "somewhat short neanderthals."

[Gothmog]

Interesting. And where does that quote come from?

[Inderjit S]

My magic Tolkien book of quotes which I use on the odd occasion, which nobody has ever seen or will see. :p

[AraCelebEarwen]

Love that pic. :D When I got my book from the library I picked up the big one with all the pictures and that's the same art.

Anyone else find it funny that the trolls in FOTR (move:o) look nothing like what they are described as in the Hobbit? I love that scene in the Hobbit and have to think that Tolkien must have had a grand time playing with it.

I could be faster to post, but I'm trying to work on the start of a story. But I'm still reading and enjoying it greatly! Sorry if I don't look like I'm keeping up, I'm just taking my time. :p :cool: :D

[Walter]

Some annotations pointed out by D. Anderson:

Then they came to lands where people spoke strangely, and sang songs Bilbo had never heard before. Now they had gone on far into the Lone-lands, ...
"Lone-Lands" here is introduced first in 1966, Anderson suggests that Tolkien provides a linguistic equivalent for Eriador here.

Fortunately the road went over an ancient stone bridge....
The ancient stone bridge ('bridge of Mitheithel') was also first introduced in 1966, in the 1937 text no bridge was mentioned.

"These parts are none too well known, and are too near the mountains. Travellers seldom come this way now. The old maps are no use: things have changed for the worse and the road is unguarded. They have seldom even heard of the king round here, and the less inquisistive you are as you go along the less trouble you are likely to find."
Anderson notes here that the reference to the king "...is probably not meant to refer to an actual personage but instead to invoke the idea of the king as the theoretical source of justice, law and order."

Doug Anderson also mentions that in his aborted 1960 rewriting of the Hobbit, Tolkien attempted to reconcile the matter regarding the discrepancy in geography that the dwarves come to the trolls place soon after crossing Hoarwell, whereas it takes Aragorn & Co almost 6 days...

tbc...

[Nenya Evenstar]

Thanks, Walter! The Annotated Hobbit quotes are most interesting! :)

Again, this chapter was one that I laughed my head off when reading as a kid. It's one of my favorites too, though I love Flies and Spiders as well.

By then he was all alone and not exactly a match for three trolls anymore. But why did they walk up to the light on small groups (if not one at a time), never gave a cry of warning and most unlikely, shouldn't they have become very supicious after just three or four did not return? Even for a children's story it sounds awfully silly when I read it now.
Perhaps some type of guerilla warfare? :D We already know from how the dwarves came to Bilbo's house (in many different groups) that they liked to travel that way. Also, when they reach Beorn's house they come to him in groups so as to not overwhelm him. Perhaps they did not want to "overwhelm" the "people" at the fire with their numbers? (If the people at the fire had been friendly they might have had second thoughts about feeding 14 people.) However, the fact that they didn't cry out does seem silly. Why didn't they hoot like an owl like they told Bilbo to?

I can't help but wonder, can these trolls even possibly the same kind of species as the cave troll in the Mines of Moria? They seem so different! Yet Tolkien wrote about the Mines of Moria troll after he wrote about Tom, Bert, and William. Surely he would have created a new species if he had wanted them to be different?

[Inderjit S]

There were several different types of trolls-the more intelligent Olog-hai, Snow-trolls, cave-trolls etc.-I guess these trolls were merely a lower 'breed' of trolls, who didn't really speak in cockney accents-it was just how their speeches were 'translated' by Bilbo and Tolkien. I guess that if humans, Elves and Orks can be different so can Trolls.

I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfits' and hence they return to stone images when not in the the dark. But there are other sorts of trolls apart from these brutal, if ridiculous stone trolls for which other origins are suggested. Letters of Tolkien

Also not the description of Trolls in the Appendix, that they were corruptions of some other beasts, latter Tolkien thought they were corruptions of 'primitive Men' (Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed) or at least some of them were minor Maia.

But always among them (as special servants or as spys of Melkor, or as leaders) there must have been numerous corrupted minor spirits who assumed similair bodily shapes. The Elves would have classed these creatures called 'trolls' (In the Hobbits and Lord of the Rings) as orks Myths Transformed; Morgoth's Ring

So there seem to have been various different 'types' of Trolls, and different 'origins' for these Trolls. Some may have been Maia and some may have been corruptions, but the 'ridiculous' stone-trolls seem to be 'counterfits' made by Morgoth.

[Ithrynluin]

1. I find the description of the company's journey through "hobbit-lands" into the "Lone-lands" interesting. There is no mention of the village of Bree here. Tolkien didn't think of it until he started drafting the sequel. But there is a description of "old castles with an evil look, as if they had been built by wicked people".

The description reminded me most of the Barrow Downs, and somewhat of the Weather Hills.

2. When the company was discussing what to do when they first saw the troll's fire through the woods, one of them said "These parts are none too well known, and are too near the mountains. Travellers seldom come this way now. The old maps are no use: things have changed for the worse and the road is unguarded. They have seldom even heard of the king round here, and the less inquisistive you are as you go along the less trouble you are likely to find."

My guess was similar to that of Mr. Anderson: that 'the King' was just a general appeal to law and order and the common sense of 'sensible folk'.

3. They had not been riding very long when up came Gandalf very splendid on a white horse.

For obvious reasons this wasn't Shadowfax, but do you think this may have possibly been a sort of 'predecessor' of Shadowfax?

Is there some significance to Gandalf's horse always being white?

4. . They moved to a clump of trees, and though it was drier under them, the wind shook the rain off the leaves, and the drip, drip, was most annoying. Also the mischief seemed to have got into the fire. Dwarves can make a fire almost anywhere out of almost anything, wind or no wind; but they could not do it that night, not even Oin and Gloin, who were specially good at it.

Would you say that the dwarves' affinity with fire can be ascribed to their being made by Aulë the Smith?

Despite their skill with fire, they could not get one going then. Do you think the reasons for this were 'ordinary', i.e. excessive dampness, or can we theorize about there being something else at play here, e.g. some evil will such as the Fellowship faced on Caradhras? Or perhaps it has something to do with the vicinity of the trolls, since the word 'mischief' is used later on in association with the troll's purse, and in this very passage about fire?

5. Yes, I am afraid trolls do behave like that, even those with only one head each.

I am trying to picture these alleged two headed trolls. It would be quite a sight for sore eyes! :p

6. It was interesting to witness Gandalf mimicking the trolls' voices. It's a pity we never see him using this talent again, though I daresay it would have come in handy.

[baragund]

Inder, I'd like to follow up a bit with my question about the reference to the trolls never hearing about the king. You responded it had to do with the ancient kings from Fornost, but that strikes me as a stretch, don't you? After all, the last king from Fornost died around a thousand years before Bilbo came along. Wouldn't that be like a present day resident of your neck of the woods demurring to the authority of the Anglo-Saxon kings of England that existed before the Battle of Hastings?

Or perhaps residents of my side of the pond owing our allegiance to Norway because Leif Erickson (spelling) discovered Vineland.

[Thorondor_]

My guess was similar to that of Mr. Anderson: that 'the King' was just a general appeal to law and order and the common sense of 'sensible folk'.
I tend to agree with that; in "Over hill and under hill" it is said that:
"He knew that something unexpected might happen, and he hardly dared to hope that they would pass without fearful adventure over those great tall mountains with lonely peaks and valleys where no king ruled"
Is there some significance to Gandalf's horse always being white?
I think so; in the "Riders of Rohan", TTT, it is said that "then he sent plundering orcs, and they carry off what they can, choosing always the black horses: few of these are now left. For that reason our feud with the orcs is bitter"; I think that the color of the horses is more than a fashion statement.

[Turgon]

I'm not really sure that works Baragund, though I think Tolkien himself, would have been much more interested in the authority of the Anglo-saxon Kings than the Norman rule that followed. In fact isn't there something in Humphrey Carpenter's biography to that effect? Given the slow development of Middle-earth culture and technology though, it takes no stretch of imagination to imagine a Saxon serf several centuries after the conquest looking back to the days of Alfred the Great and wishing for the return of such a king.

As for the evil structures in the lone-lands, there is specific mention of them in some of Tolkien's later writings.

In Rhudaur an evil folk, workers of sorcery, subjects of Angmar, slay the remnants of the Dunedain and build dark forts in the hills.

A quote from The People of Middle-earth which seems a direct reference to the ruins mentioned in The Hobbit.

As for the Trolls, I always liked that little adventure, throws up more questions than it answers, but that is never a bad thing. I did hear somebody on this forum say that the Troll's accents sound Mancunian to them. I can only take exception to that... :p But given dwarven paranoia I don't really boggle at the dwarves coming to the fire in the manner they did. No doubt those left behind thought that the rest of the company were sitting about, drinking strong ale and having a devil of a time.

[baragund]

I'm not really sure that works Baragund, though I think Tolkien himself, would have been much more interested in the authority of the Anglo-saxon Kings than the Norman rule that followed. In fact isn't there something in Humphrey Carpenter's biography to that effect? Given the slow development of Middle-earth culture and technology though, it takes no stretch of imagination to imagine a Saxon serf several centuries after the conquest looking back to the days of Alfred the Great and wishing for the return of such a king.



Perhaps you're right, Turgon. After all, Tolkien's society was much more static than ours in RL. Hundreds or even thousands of years pass in Middle-earth with little change in the way people lived and their social relationships. Much different from the rapidly changing world of RL!

...and it's GREAT to see you around again!! :) I hope you kick your shoes off, prop your feet up and stay a while!

[Inderjit S]

Does the legend of the king surviving in the Shire law strike you as a 'stretch'? What about the fact that Gollum's people and grandmother were able to preserve some law about the Last Alliance and perhaps Isildur a couple of thousand years after it took place? The Shire had their 'historians' of course, who were mainly interested in 'hobbit-lore' which mainly concerned genealogies and other such things, but I guess the ancient histories of the major families were in a sense tied up with the start of some of the ancient authorities. It also symbolised the start of 'anarchy' in Arnor, with no 'authority figure' that the Hobbits may have been answerable to, and in turn it led to a greater sense of autonomy for the Shire hobbits. Remember the Hobbits still had tales of Southrons, Oliphaunts and Were-Worms ingrained in their songs. I guess they would have had some kind of vague recollection of a (or 'the') "king" as a essentially "good" ruler, whose fall led to the lands about them being turned into 'wild lands', and so any creatures who were 'bad' hadn't heard of the king. It may be a long stretch, but so were many other things in Middle-Earth. I would much rather look to the words of Tolkien than Mr. Anderson, which is based on conjecture, and what Tolkien thought when he wrote The Hobbit, not how what he wrote in The Hobbit can be reconciled with contradictory parts of LoTR.

[baragund]

Good points, Inder. The passage struck me as odd because the remark about "the king" reads as if the king is still around, not like a reference to an ancient tradition.

[Walter]

Good points only with hindsight, IMO. Of course there were some connections - or maybe better: allusions - to the rest of the legendarium at the time The Hobbit was written, but such allusions can as well be found in Roverandom.

If I subtract all later changes, The Hobbit - to me - is pretty much on the same plane as Roverandom. A children's tale. With a new race, hobbits - which at first not only phonetically reminds of rabbits - with dragons, wizards, dwarfs, trolls, elfs and goblins. Does a king usually come in such tales? Well of course...

I see The Hobbit rather in the context of the tales of the Grimms, Lang, MacDonald, Wyke-Smith, etc., than in the context of Middle-earth...