Chapter of the Week - LotR Bk1 Ch6: "The Old Forest"
Tamfiiris Entwife
and future chapter discussions, as well as how to volunteer.
Summary
Frodo is woken up before dawn by an energetic Merry. As soon as their
preparations are done (and breakfast eaten), Merry leads the party
through the countryside, along the Hedge, and into the Old Forest. Fatty
takes his leave of them, and the Hobbits leave the Shire. The silent
hostility of the forest immediately makes an impression on the party.
A friendly shout from Pippin and a cheerful song by Frodo only seem
to increase this discomfort.
The hobbits lunch on a naked hill above the forest roof, and are given a
lesson in the local geography by Merry. As they leave the hill, they
find that the forest inevitably nudges them in the direction they do not
want to go - southeast, towards the root of the forest's "queerness". At
the bank of the river Withywindle they find a path which they follow
until a sudden sleepiness overpowers them. Sam is the only one who
doesn't find peace against the trunk of a willow, but remains alert
enough to save Frodo from drowning when he falls into the river. The
two then discover that Pippin and Merry are being swallowed by a
willow. Attempts to release them by lighting a fire only leads to the
tree squashing them harder.
Frodo, despairing, runs along the path, crying for help. To his
surprise, he is answered. The person he meets is man-like, yet not quite
a Man, and incessantly singing. He calls himself Tom Bombadil, and
easily makes the willow release the captive hobbits. He then promises
the travellers lodgings at his house and gives them directions on how to
find it. As they are again about to collapse from exhaustion, they reach
a neat garden, and a house emanating song and golden light.
***
Comments & Questions
Feel free to drag writings from this chapter, other Tolkien works, or
your own wild speculations into this discussion.
This is a chapter that leads into the unknown. The hobbits leave the
Shire, locking the gate behind them, and venture into unfamiliar
territory. This is symbolised by the dense mist that envelops them as
they set out, and returns to do so in the evening. However, the mist
doesn't reach Tom Bombadil's, which signals a small respite from the big
wide world. His garden is neat and ordered in an English manner, which
must be very comforting to the hobbits. But why does he have such a
pretty garden? Doesn't he like the forest?
This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
true. Are they?
The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance into a
place that seemed to be so unwelcoming? Were they just adventurous, or
had they been thinking ahead?
We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
footers?
How do the trees communicate? They seem to be pretty quick, both in
relaying information and in changing their formations.
Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction than the one
chosen for them by the Forest?
Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
path just when they needed him the most?
As the chapter begins, Frodo is still shaken by his dream, whereas Merry
is friskily prepared for the journey ahead. Further indications of
Frodo's spiritual personality versus Merry's being a man of action?
"I'll sing his roots off. I'll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch
away."
Song is very important in this chapter. The hobbits are lulled to sleep,
but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything - the magical
power song has in Middle Earth? The fact that this power can be both
used and misused?
There is also an interesting contrast in that the tree makes the hobbits
sleep, whereas Tom says the tree should not be waking.
"In their shed they found the ponies; sturdy little beasts of the
kind loved by hobbits, not speedy, but good for a long day's work."
We did it for the dogs, and I believe the ponies deserve no worse. What
kind of modern-day pony would this kind resemble? The extremely small
toy horses, or a more rugged Northern type, such as a Shetland pony?
(guess where my money lies)
"In the midst of it there wound lazily a dark river of brown water,
bordered with ancient willows, arched over with willows, blocked with
fallen willows, and flecked with thousands of faded willow-leaves."
An example of Tolkien's willowy phrases of nature description. In this
case, it's also important for what follows.
We first meet the famous Tom Bombadil. As the author states, what he's
singing is nonsense, and clearly, his rhymes are not meant to be
poetical. However, his songs very much remind me of certain nonsense
lines in British folk songs (for instance "to me ri-fol-lair-ry, fol-
the-diddle-ay" or "must-a-whack-a-row-di-dow-now, right-a-fol-di-
daddy"). If you just listen to Tom Bombadil's singing without trying to
make sense of it, it's actually quite euphonious. Like "cellar door".
I'll leave the biggest question, "Who is Tom Bombadil", to the next
chapter discussion. };8)
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Ents for E-books
Kristian Damm Jensen
> The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
> saying "Danger. Keep Out"?
No, this is just a natural phenomon. At that time of year spiders are
abundant, and the dew and fog makes their webs very visible in the morning.
I think Tolkien mention it to stress the slight sinister feeling: early
morning, fog, travelling into the unknown.
> Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
> the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
Nope.
> They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
> iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance
> into a place that seemed to be so unwelcoming?
It would be useful, if the forest once again tried to attack the hedge. how
else would they get near the trees?
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
Indeed. But as we know (some of us, at least) a million to one chances turn
out nine times out of ten. Which is good for Frodo, since this is neither
the first nor the last time he is helped by a million to one chance.
--
Kristian Damm Jensen damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to
deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all
ends." -- Tolkien in The Fellowship of the Ring
Elwë Singollo
> The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
> saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
> the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
I do not think that it was Tolkien's way of saying "Danger". IMHO, he was
rather describing this foggy morning in a very realistic manner : When the
air is so saturated with water that little drops form on the cobwebs. I
don't think the hobbits remembered Bilbo's tale at this time. There is no
indication that these webs were larger than usual, and the poor hobbits
probaly had other things in mind than old Bilbo's stories.
>
> They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
> iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance into a
> place that seemed to be so unwelcoming? Were they just adventurous, or
> had they been thinking ahead?
Stranger : Merry seems to be the only one to know anything about this
passage...
> Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction than the one
> chosen for them by the Forest?
I am not sure that the Forest really forced the hobbits to go where it
intended.
In fact, we don't really know whether the trees really moved and spoke. As
you wrote, so are the old stories going, but are they true. Some hints are
given that the trees really have "powers" : there is the story in which the
trees attacked the hedge, and of course, old man willow. But I would rather
think that the forest didn't chose the hobbits way. They thought so, because
they were so freightened by the old stories, that they believed the trees
were up to no good, but save the old man willow, there isn't any direct
action from the forest on the hobbits. To me it gives the impression that
they were so sure the tress had bad intentions towards them, that persuaded
themselves that the forest was playing them trick and they panicked and got
lost.
Now there is still a question : Was the fact that the hobbit panicked a
concious act from the forest (i.e. did the forest make the hobbit panick),
or did they panick only because of the stories they heard about it, and the
trees didn't care at all?
>
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
First time, but not the last one :-) But hey! isn't that part of Tom
Bombadil mystery?
>
> (guess where my money lies)
>
In a Swiss bank I hope!
Elwë
Raven
meddelelse news:MPG.1aa3596cc...@news.online.no...
> But why does he have such a pretty garden? Doesn't he like the forest?
Probably he likes them both. I also have a garden; it is rather weedy,
though. Potted plants I do not have, on window-sills or tables.
> This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
> has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
> now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
> true. Are they?
Merry's rumours, somewhat more. Probably not Fatty's tales, referred to
us by Merry.
> We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
> swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
> Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
By Merry's tale it likely was - though probably the trees were trying to
reclaim the lands that once were their possession.
> Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
> hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
> footers?
Judging now by what we read in the following chapter, where Tom he speaks
in more detail about the ancient forest, quite certainly the trees dislike
all that gnaw and hack and burn, walkers and usurpers.
> Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction than the one
> chosen for them by the Forest?
Perhaps they could, if they had not brought ponies with them, and if they
had been as crafty in the wood as Aragorn the Strider.
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
Providence it may have been - again and not the last time.
> We first meet the famous Tom Bombadil. As the author states, what he's
> singing is nonsense, and clearly, his rhymes are not meant to be
> poetical. However, his songs very much remind me of certain nonsense
> lines in British folk songs (for instance "to me ri-fol-lair-ry, fol-
> the-diddle-ay" or "must-a-whack-a-row-di-dow-now, right-a-fol-di-
> daddy"). If you just listen to Tom Bombadil's singing without trying to
> make sense of it, it's actually quite euphonious. Like "cellar door".
There is one thing I didn't notice during my first readings: it is that
even when he talks, Tom he talks in rhythm. Though admitted may it be, it's
sometimes hard to follow.
> Ents for E-books
Maybe Ents are for bidets?
Ramn the Black of Feather.
Count Menelvagor
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
It's that Providence business again.
> "I'll sing his roots off. I'll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch
> away."
>
> Song is very important in this chapter. The hobbits are lulled to sleep,
> but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything - the magical
> power song has in Middle Earth? The fact that this power can be both
> used and misused?
Song as a creative power is bound with the fabric of Ea, why in the
Ainulindale it brought into being. I think this idea may owe
soemthing to Barfield's "ancient unities" and conveys the notion that
originally there was no distinction made among word, song, and effect,
so that to say a thing could be magical in itself. This could be pure
fancy, but I think it's an interesting idea anyway. (And Tolkien
wasn't above fancy.)
The notion may also owe something to Finnish mythology. If you want a
sampo (whatever the blazes that is), you sing for it.
Compare also the contest between Sauron and Fingon, consisting
entirely of song. "He sang a song of wizardry," etc.
AC
Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
><http://parasha.maoltuile.org/> will give you information about previous
> and future chapter discussions, as well as how to volunteer.
<snip>
> This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
> has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
> now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
> true. Are they?
Obviously some of them are, as a hedge was planted and there was still a
large clearing where the Bucklanders had burned the trees.
>
> The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
> saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
> the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
I think it's more a sign that the woods are rarely entered, and I imagine
that represents danger.
>
> They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
> iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance into a
> place that seemed to be so unwelcoming? Were they just adventurous, or
> had they been thinking ahead?
I'm sure thinking ahead was part of it. Perhaps they were also thumbing
their noses at the trees.
>
> We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
> swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
> Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
This seems to have been the case. The Forest was clearly an unwholesome
place, at least to folks that walked on two legs.
>
> Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
> hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
> footers?
Considering that it was a remnant of a wood that had stretched to Dunharrow
(and farther as I recall), and that it seems axes may have been its demise,
I imagine it's a general dislike of two-footers.
>
> How do the trees communicate? They seem to be pretty quick, both in
> relaying information and in changing their formations.
I think we're dealing with something akin to Huorns here. Tolkien never
really explains what is in the Old Forest, and the biggest hint is Bombadil
talking about Old Man Willow being a big player. I'd love to know precisely
what Old Man Willow was. Was he an Ent gone bad?
>
> Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction than the one
> chosen for them by the Forest?
Tom Bombadil indicates that all paths lead to the vale of the Withywindle.
>
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
I doubt there was any coincidence.
>
> As the chapter begins, Frodo is still shaken by his dream, whereas Merry
> is friskily prepared for the journey ahead. Further indications of
> Frodo's spiritual personality versus Merry's being a man of action?
There's no doubt that Frodo is the most introspective and spiritual of all
the Hobbits.
>
> "I'll sing his roots off. I'll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch
> away."
>
> Song is very important in this chapter. The hobbits are lulled to sleep,
> but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything - the magical
> power song has in Middle Earth? The fact that this power can be both
> used and misused?
As I recall, song is how Luthien toppled the original Minas Tirith and put
Morgoth to sleep. It seems that song does have potency.
>
> There is also an interesting contrast in that the tree makes the hobbits
> sleep, whereas Tom says the tree should not be waking.
As I questioned above, I'd just love to know what Old Man Willow was.
>
> "In their shed they found the ponies; sturdy little beasts of the
> kind loved by hobbits, not speedy, but good for a long day's work."
>
> We did it for the dogs, and I believe the ponies deserve no worse. What
> kind of modern-day pony would this kind resemble? The extremely small
> toy horses, or a more rugged Northern type, such as a Shetland pony?
> (guess where my money lies)
I'm guessing a rugged, working pony.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
AC
Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
> and future chapter discussions, as well as how to volunteer.
<snip>
> This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
> has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
> now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
> true. Are they?
Obviously some of them are, as a hedge was planted and there was still a
large clearing where the Bucklanders had burned the trees.
>
> The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
> saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
> the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
I think it's more a sign that the woods are rarely entered, and I imagine
that represents danger.
>
> They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
> iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance into a
> place that seemed to be so unwelcoming? Were they just adventurous, or
> had they been thinking ahead?
I'm sure thinking ahead was part of it. Perhaps they were also thumbing
their noses at the trees.
>
> We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
> swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
> Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
This seems to have been the case. The Forest was clearly an unwholesome
place, at least to folks that walked on two legs.
>
> Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
> hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
> footers?
Considering that it was a remnant of a wood that had stretched to Dunharrow
(and farther as I recall), and that it seems axes may have been its demise,
I imagine it's a general dislike of two-footers.
>
> How do the trees communicate? They seem to be pretty quick, both in
> relaying information and in changing their formations.
I think we're dealing with something akin to Huorns here. Tolkien never
really explains what is in the Old Forest, and the biggest hint is Bombadil
talking about Old Man Willow being a big player. I'd love to know precisely
what Old Man Willow was. Was he an Ent gone bad?
>
> Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction than the one
> chosen for them by the Forest?
Tom Bombadil indicates that all paths lead to the vale of the Withywindle.
>
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
I doubt there was any coincidence.
>
> As the chapter begins, Frodo is still shaken by his dream, whereas Merry
> is friskily prepared for the journey ahead. Further indications of
> Frodo's spiritual personality versus Merry's being a man of action?
There's no doubt that Frodo is the most introspective and spiritual of all
the Hobbits.
>
> "I'll sing his roots off. I'll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch
> away."
>
> Song is very important in this chapter. The hobbits are lulled to sleep,
> but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything - the magical
> power song has in Middle Earth? The fact that this power can be both
> used and misused?
As I recall, song is how Luthien toppled the original Minas Tirith and put
Morgoth to sleep. It seems that song does have potency.
>
> There is also an interesting contrast in that the tree makes the hobbits
> sleep, whereas Tom says the tree should not be waking.
As I questioned above, I'd just love to know what Old Man Willow was.
>
> "In their shed they found the ponies; sturdy little beasts of the
> kind loved by hobbits, not speedy, but good for a long day's work."
>
> We did it for the dogs, and I believe the ponies deserve no worse. What
> kind of modern-day pony would this kind resemble? The extremely small
> toy horses, or a more rugged Northern type, such as a Shetland pony?
> (guess where my money lies)
I'm guessing a rugged, working pony.
Glenn Holliday
>
> ... However, the mist
> doesn't reach Tom Bombadil's, which signals a small respite from the big
> wide world. His garden is neat and ordered in an English manner, which
> must be very comforting to the hobbits. But why does he have such a
> pretty garden? Doesn't he like the forest?
But Bombadil's home life is rather more anarchic than most English
houses. This aspect of Tom is emphasized more in Tolkien's two
poems about him. So I don't see any conflict. Tom is at home
in his garden, in the forest, out boating, in Farmer Maggot's
kitchen, or anywhere else his whim takes him.
Also, the garden might reflect Goldberry more than Tom.
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
Put this together with his appearance at the barrow, which I
find even less likely. I have a criticism about that, but I'll
save it for that chapter :-) Tom's appearance doesn't quite
work as well as other examples of providence in LOTR because
Tom seems to operate more by chance than by providence.
> Song is very important in this chapter. The hobbits are lulled to sleep,
> but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything - the magical
> power song has in Middle Earth?
Sure. This is something I like about Tom. He's always singing,
even when he's talking. It's an image of song bubbling up
out of Nature. And Tom's nonsense is a refreshing contrast
to Tolkien's High Elvish poetry.
--
Glenn Holliday holl...@acm.org
TeaLady (Mari C.)
news:6bfb27a8.04022...@posting.google.com:
> The notion may also owe something to Finnish mythology. If
> you want a sampo (whatever the blazes that is), you sing for
> it.
>
>
It's magic - a magical mill that grinds out what you tell it to.
Gold, salt (a precious commodity way back before when), etc.
--
mc
Henriette
> Summary
(snip)
> A friendly shout from Pippin and a cheerful song by Frodo only seem
> to increase this discomfort.
Here we differ somewhat on the emotional background. I would call
Pippin's shout fearful, at this point and Frodo very much
try-to-sound-cheerful: "but his voice sank to a murmur".
>
> Feel free to drag writings from this chapter, other Tolkien works, or
> your own wild speculations into this discussion.
>
Wild speculations, LOL! I would like to add how I am moved by Sam's
brave loyal perseverence in wanting to free Merry and Pippin from Old
Man Willow: "I'll have it down, if I have to gnaw it".
>(snip) doesn't reach Tom Bombadil's, which signals a small respite
from the big
> wide world. His garden is neat and ordered in an English manner, which
> must be very comforting to the hobbits. But why does he have such a
> pretty garden? Doesn't he like the forest?
Several questions you ask, are eleborated upon in the next chapter.
This is one of them. I will probably leave it for the moment, as I
don't think at this point we're supposed to know.
>
> This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
> has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
> now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
> true. Are they?
>
As is usually the case with rumours: some are and some aren't. If
Fatty is more frightened of the Old Forest than of Black Riders, the
rumours he heard were probably over-the-top.
> We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
> swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
> Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
My feeling is: defence was necessary, but this war seems to me to have
been unnecessarily harsh.
> Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
> hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
> footers?
This is told in the next chapter.
>
> Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction than the one
> chosen for them by the Forest?
No. (Next chapter)
>
> Wasn't it a marvellous coincidence that Tom came wandering down that
> path just when they needed him the most?
>
Elaborated upon in the next chapter.
> As the chapter begins, Frodo is still shaken by his dream, whereas Merry
> is friskily prepared for the journey ahead. Further indications of
> Frodo's spiritual personality versus Merry's being a man of action?
>
I would say Frodo's spiritual personality/melancholy character,
definitely very different from the cheerful hobbit of action Merry.
> "I'll sing his roots off. I'll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch
> away."
>
> Song is very important in this chapter. The hobbits are lulled to sleep,
> but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything - the magical
> power song has in Middle Earth?
It reflects the power song has in Middle Earth, on this earth and in
the Silmarillion.
> The fact that this power can be both used and misused?
>
Definitely.
> We did it for the dogs, and I believe the ponies deserve no worse. What
> kind of modern-day pony would this kind resemble? The extremely small
> toy horses, or a more rugged Northern type, such as a Shetland pony?
> (guess where my money lies)
Shetland pony, same as mine?
>
> An example of Tolkien's willowy phrases of nature description. In this
> case, it's also important for what follows.
Why is the Bad Tree a willow, my favorite of trees?
>
> If you just listen to Tom Bombadil's singing without trying to
> make sense of it, it's actually quite euphonious. Like "cellar door".
"Cellar door"?
> I'll leave the biggest question, "Who is Tom Bombadil", to the next
> chapter discussion. };8)
Why thank you! };8)
Brava Tamf! Excellent summary and points!
Henriette
Henriette
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:28:01 -0000,
> Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
> > The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
> > saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
> > the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
>
> I think it's more a sign that the woods are rarely entered, and I imagine
> that represents danger.
You would make a good detective. I never thought of that!
>
> > We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
> > swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
> > Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
>
> This seems to have been the case. The Forest was clearly an unwholesome
> place, at least to folks that walked on two legs.
Couldn't they have built a wall like the Israelian, and have refrained
from all the hacking and destroying?
>
> As I questioned above, I'd just love to know what Old Man Willow was.
As you probably recall, Tom spends quite some time talking about him
in chapter 7.
Henriette
Tamfiiris Entwife
> I am not sure that the Forest really forced the hobbits to go where it
> intended.
a very good point. how much of the atmosphere in the forest is real, and
how much imagined? we keep being told how the hobbits feel steadily
worse in it, but the trees are never proven to do something - until they
meet the willow, that is. on the other hand, they *do* walk in a
direction they clearly wish to avoid, and they do meet the willow.
> In fact, we don't really know whether the trees really moved and spoke.
we don't, but Merry seems to think they do. ("Well, well!" he said.
"These trees do shift. There is the Bonfire Glade in front of us (or I
hope so), but the path to it seems to have moved away!"). now, he could
just remember the location of the path wrongly, but there's no reason
why he should have lost his head this early on.
> As
> you wrote, so are the old stories going, but are they true. Some hints are
> given that the trees really have "powers" : there is the story in which the
> trees attacked the hedge, and of course, old man willow. But I would rather
> think that the forest didn't chose the hobbits way. They thought so, because
> they were so freightened by the old stories, that they believed the trees
> were up to no good, but save the old man willow, there isn't any direct
> action from the forest on the hobbits. To me it gives the impression that
> they were so sure the tress had bad intentions towards them, that persuaded
> themselves that the forest was playing them trick and they panicked and got
> lost.
well, both human and hobbit minds work in mysterious ways, and
imagination is always the most likely reason for supernatural events.
Pippin is the first to give in, impressionable youngster that he is.
Frodo, worried about his dangerous quest, is next. but wouldn't Sam and
Merry be more levelheaded than letting themselves believe that the
forest was out to get them if it wasn't?
> Now there is still a question : Was the fact that the hobbit panicked a
> concious act from the forest (i.e. did the forest make the hobbit panick),
> or did they panick only because of the stories they heard about it, and the
> trees didn't care at all?
i'm still thinking that the trees cared quite a bit, but as we've seen,
it's very difficult to prove what they did or did not do.
> > (guess where my money lies)
> In a Swiss bank I hope!
in a swiss CHOKLIT factory, more likely...
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold;
What hath quench'd them hath given me fire.
Tamfiiris Entwife
> Probably he likes them both. I also have a garden; it is rather weedy,
> though. Potted plants I do not have, on window-sills or tables.
and do you have a wild forest just outside your garden fence?
> > Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
> By Merry's tale it likely was - though probably the trees were trying to
> reclaim the lands that once were their possession.
the trees remind me a little of American Indians, actually - all the
land was theirs once, and now they're enclosed in this pitiful, fenced
reservation.
> > Could the hobbits possibly have gone in any other direction
> Perhaps they could, if they had not brought ponies with them, and if they
> had been as crafty in the wood as Aragorn the Strider.
they should have brought a dwarf!
> > Ents for E-books
> Maybe Ents are for bidets?
that would be the end of the ents...
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Tamfiiris Entwife
[forest rumours true]
> Obviously some of them are, as a hedge was planted and there was still a
> large clearing where the Bucklanders had burned the trees.
if the tree-war "long ago" was indeed long ago, a normal forest would
have reclaimed the glade by now. maybe the trees consciously stay away
from a place where they suffered so many losees. maybe the hobbits put
poison in the ground.
or perhaps it's Tolkien's normal way of marking that something happened
here, once (aren't there several places in his works where things never
grow after something terrible happened there?).
> > The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs.
> I think it's more a sign that the woods are rarely entered, and I imagine
> that represents danger.
indeed, the hedge is described as "looming" at this point, and the whole
passage gives me a feeling of unease. the cobwebs certainly don't make
it more cheerful.
[gate into forest]
> I'm sure thinking ahead was part of it. Perhaps they were also thumbing
> their noses at the trees.
they wouldn't be the first to think they could lock out the rest of the
world...
> I think we're dealing with something akin to Huorns here. Tolkien never
> really explains what is in the Old Forest, and the biggest hint is Bombadil
> talking about Old Man Willow being a big player. I'd love to know precisely
> what Old Man Willow was. Was he an Ent gone bad?
he certainly has more abilities than your average weeping willow. on the
other hand, he's clearly well rooted in his spot, and quite tree-like.
he must have gone treeish for a long time, if he's an ent.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Hunting is no fun
when the rabbit has the gun.
Tamfiiris Entwife
> Wild speculations, LOL! I would like to add how I am moved by Sam's
> brave loyal perseverence in wanting to free Merry and Pippin from Old
> Man Willow: "I'll have it down, if I have to gnaw it".
it would have created a beautiful contrast if he did: tree devours
hobbits, hobbit gnaws down tree.
> Several questions you ask, are eleborated upon in the next chapter.
> This is one of them. I will probably leave it for the moment, as I
> don't think at this point we're supposed to know.
this is why i asked for wild speculations! }:8)
> > (guess where my money lies)
> Shetland pony, same as mine?
yes. now, which colour?
> Why is the Bad Tree a willow, my favorite of trees?
the willow was seen as a very powerful tree, as it would pop up again
even if you cut down most of it - i've seen this happen myself, with a
willow tree bordering the road. it was reduced to a stump by the road
authorities, but it's now back and sprouting as never before. because of
this power, i assume, it was used in witchcraft. (more here:
<http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.mythwillow.html>)
so maybe Old Man Willow symbolises the almost-beaten forest fighting
back?
in addition, the willow was often used as an emblem of sorrow and
mourning. someone who had lost their lover was said to "wear the
willow". although i doubt this is relevant, i find it most interesting.
> "Cellar door"?
it was a sound combination Tolkien really liked, without thinking about
the meaning. see <http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm> for more.
> Brava Tamf! Excellent summary and points!
i get points for this? woo hoo!
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Away from home, I was longing for news
Winter after winter, spring after spring.
Now, nearing my village, meeting people,
I dare not ask a single question. (Li Pin)
Raven
> the willow was seen as a very powerful tree, as it would pop up again
> even if you cut down most of it - i've seen this happen myself, with a
> willow tree bordering the road. it was reduced to a stump by the road
> authorities, but it's now back and sprouting as never before. because of
> this power, i assume, it was used in witchcraft. (more here:
> <http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.mythwillow.html>)
I cut one of the thin willow-branches off a tree outside in a previous
place that I lived. I planted the branch in a bottle of water on my sill,
taking care that the lower end was kept dark: the bottle was of dark glass,
and I wrapped paper thickly around it. Hey ho! didn't take long for the
branch to sprout roots down there, and after re-potting it I soon had a
small willow-bush framing my window.
You don't do that with any old species of tree. Or leastaways I don't.
Hrafntje.
Raven
> > Probably he likes them both. I also have a garden; it is rather
> > weedy, though. Potted plants I do not have, on window-sills or tables.
> and do you have a wild forest just outside your garden fence?
A wildwood in Denmark? I think they have a small one over there -----> ;
otherwise they grow forests like crops in this country, well-tended and for
a purpose. But my point was that he could cherish both, a wild forest and a
tidy garden.
> > Maybe Ents are for bidets?
> that would be the end of the ents...
So long as the end of the Ents doesn't coincide with the end of Men, both
may be glad.
<this may be fertile ground for the tamil conspiracy>
Ravnur.
AC
Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
> help! AC has fallen in the water!
>
>
> [forest rumours true]
>
>> Obviously some of them are, as a hedge was planted and there was still a
>> large clearing where the Bucklanders had burned the trees.
>
> if the tree-war "long ago" was indeed long ago, a normal forest would
> have reclaimed the glade by now. maybe the trees consciously stay away
> from a place where they suffered so many losees. maybe the hobbits put
> poison in the ground.
>
> or perhaps it's Tolkien's normal way of marking that something happened
> here, once (aren't there several places in his works where things never
> grow after something terrible happened there?).
I think your first explanation most likely. The trees either feared the
place, or at least it invoked bad memories of when folk on two-feet got the
better of them.
>
>> > The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs.
>
>> I think it's more a sign that the woods are rarely entered, and I imagine
>> that represents danger.
>
> indeed, the hedge is described as "looming" at this point, and the whole
> passage gives me a feeling of unease. the cobwebs certainly don't make
> it more cheerful.
This is another point at which Tolkien shows his skill at setting the mood.
>
> [gate into forest]
>
>> I'm sure thinking ahead was part of it. Perhaps they were also thumbing
>> their noses at the trees.
>
> they wouldn't be the first to think they could lock out the rest of the
> world...
No, and it also seems to be a constant feeling with the Hobbits, that they
were seperate and untouchable. Any interference from the outside was far
beyond even in the eldest hobbit's memory, and created a society that I
think took navel gazing to new heights.
>
>> I think we're dealing with something akin to Huorns here. Tolkien never
>> really explains what is in the Old Forest, and the biggest hint is Bombadil
>> talking about Old Man Willow being a big player. I'd love to know precisely
>> what Old Man Willow was. Was he an Ent gone bad?
>
> he certainly has more abilities than your average weeping willow. on the
> other hand, he's clearly well rooted in his spot, and quite tree-like.
> he must have gone treeish for a long time, if he's an ent.
He seems a little too aware to be a Huorn, and a little too rooted to be an
Ent. My hunch is that he was an Ent that had become somewhat treeish. He
must have been one formidable Ent to be able to dominate so much of the Old
Forest.
Jon Hall
Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
> in addition, the willow was often used as an emblem of sorrow and
> mourning. someone who had lost their lover was said to "wear the
> willow". although i doubt this is relevant, i find it most interesting.
All around my hat....
Belba Grubb from Stock
<fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>Feel free to drag writings from this chapter, other Tolkien works, or
>your own wild speculations into this discussion.
This isn't a comment or a wild speculation, but ever since reading
that they went through a spinney behind the house as they made their
way across the fields, I've wondered: what is a spinney?
>This is a chapter that leads into the unknown. The hobbits leave the
>Shire, locking the gate behind them, and venture into unfamiliar
>territory. This is symbolised by the dense mist that envelops them as
>they set out, and returns to do so in the evening. However, the mist
>doesn't reach Tom Bombadil's, which signals a small respite from the big
>wide world. His garden is neat and ordered in an English manner, which
>must be very comforting to the hobbits. But why does he have such a
>pretty garden? Doesn't he like the forest?
He doesn't fear the forest, clearly, as he knows the song for Old Man
Willow, and his very circumscribed territory does include the forest,
or at least that part along the Withywindle where he meets the hobbits
(and long ago found Goldberry) and exits somewhere into the Shire
either along the Withywindle or through the forest itself (and the
hedge) so he can occasionally meet Farmer Maggott.
I think he must go in the forest, too, because of Merry's comment here
that something makes paths there. The trees wouldn't do that, and the
Old Forest must be a biological desert in terms of animals that might
do so (as is true of many old forests). Also, Bombadil occasionally
tends toward autumn leaves for headgear, as we'll see in the next
chapter. As for the garden, well, vegetables are part of a balanced
diet (g) -- what sort of things could he get from the forest besides
nuts, twigs to brew tea with, some mosses and mushrooms, wild honey
and, of course, autumn leaves?
>This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
>has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
>now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
>true. Are they?
Merry was probably correct in saying generally that it was very much
more alive, more aware of what is going on. But as for the rest of it
-- their driving the hobbits toward the Withywindle -- well, perhaps,
though I always wondered about those deep folds in the ground that
helped force the hobbits down to the Withywindle -- how could the
trees achieve that without Ents?
>They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
>iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance into a
>place that seemed to be so unwelcoming? Were they just adventurous, or
>had they been thinking ahead?
They have the tunnel there for when the fit takes them to go in
(Brandybucks must be very moody), and what better response to a
perceived threat from the living, green world than cold brick and hard
iron. A surprisingly mordorish touch there from the hobbits.
>Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
>hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
>footers?
Doesn't Treebeard say later that he can believe there is a remnant of
the Darkness (of Morgoth) in the Old Forest? Clinging to that
darkness, with the tendency unified and strengthened to palpable
levels under the will of Old Man Willow, whatever he was, would be a
general reason.
>How do the trees communicate? They seem to be pretty quick, both in
>relaying information and in changing their formations.
It's been shown that some trees and vines communicate, hasn't it?
Something to do with insect infestations. (Time out to google: Aha!
See "Do Trees Communicate For Mutual Defense?" at
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/762.html )
I know of four hobbits who would answer that question with a heartfelt
"yes!" As for the Old Forest, the best bet would be communications
via chemicals, through the leaves and root systems. Or maybe they're
just all pawns, robotically following Old Man Willow's intense will.
Barb
_____
Keep behind me. There's no sense in getting killed by a plant.
-- Tom Goodwin
_____
AC
> AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc3lc1f.2ac....@alder.alberni.net>...
>>
>
> As you probably recall, Tom spends quite some time talking about him
> in chapter 7.
Unfortunately Tom really doesn't answer the question there either.
Henriette
> In message <MPG.1aa5c06df...@news.online.no>
> Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>
> > in addition, the willow was often used as an emblem of sorrow and
> > mourning. someone who had lost their lover was said to "wear the
> > willow". although i doubt this is relevant, i find it most interesting.
>
> All around my hat....
Lovely song, isn´t it? But I never knew that the fact she was wearing
"the green willow" "for a 12 months and a day" around her hat, was a
sign of *mourning*. I thought it was a sign she was getting over "the
false deluding young man", because she started to dress up again:-)
Henriette
Henriette
> On 23 Feb 2004 23:57:25 -0800,
> Henriette <held...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc3lc1f.2ac....@alder.alberni.net>...
> >>
> >> As I questioned above, I'd just love to know what Old Man Willow was.
> >
> > As you probably recall, Tom spends quite some time talking about him
> > in chapter 7.
>
> Unfortunately Tom really doesn't answer the question there either.
He does for me. I do not mean this to be a nasty answer, just to
indicate a difference for us to ponder upon.
Henriette
Henriette
> help! Henriette has fallen in the water!
I haven´t and I´m glad glad I haven´t, as it´s snowing cats and dogs
right now.
>
> > Wild speculations, LOL! I would like to add how I am moved by Sam's
> > brave loyal perseverence in wanting to free Merry and Pippin from Old
> > Man Willow: "I'll have it down, if I have to gnaw it".
>
> it would have created a beautiful contrast if he did: tree devours
> hobbits, hobbit gnaws down tree.
You are *definitely* one of AFT´s funniest posters.
>
> > Several questions you ask, are eleborated upon in the next chapter.
> > This is one of them. I will probably leave it for the moment, as I
> > don't think at this point we're supposed to know.
>
> this is why i asked for wild speculations! }:8)
One has to be a brave person to make wild speculations on AFT.
> > > (guess where my money lies)
> > Shetland pony, same as mine?
>
> yes. now, which colour?
Partly white and partly light brown?
>
> > Why is the Bad Tree a willow, my favorite of trees?
>
(snip nice info on my favorite tree)
> <http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/tfl.mythwillow.html>)
Nice link! I do not find the "sad" willow sad, just because it let its
branches hang down, because the branches always dance and make soft
music. I did not know my clogs are made from willow-wood either:-)
>
> so maybe Old Man Willow symbolises the almost-beaten forest fighting
> back?
I´m always hoping for rainforests, willows and redwoods to fight back.
>
> > "Cellar door"?
>
> it was a sound combination Tolkien really liked, without thinking about
> the meaning. see <http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/vice.htm> for more.
Nice info again! I´m also fascinated by the mysterious looking Welsh,
Celtic and Finnish languages.
>
> > Brava Tamf! Excellent summary and points!
>
> i get points for this? woo hoo!
Yes, and a Shetland pony made of white and brown CHOKLIT.
Henriette
Troels Forchhammer
AC <mightym...@yahoo.ca> enriched us with:
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:28:01 -0000,
> Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the
>> author saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits
>> remembered the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other
>> premonitions?
>
> I think it's more a sign that the woods are rarely entered, and I
> imagine that represents danger.
I'm not sure the Hobbits remembered Bilbo's tales, but there is, IMO,
a chance that the readers were supposed to remember Mirkwood.
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Belba Grubb from Stock
wrote:
>According to my dictionary:
>
>A small wood or copse, esp. one planted or preserved for sheltering
>game-birds; a small clump or plantation of trees.
Thanks! It wasn't in my dictionary, and over the years I've just
imagined some sort of a rotating gate that people could go through
(and their animals, if the people wished to bring them through) but
livestock couldn't.
I like that contrast -- the Brandybucks building a hedge against the
Old Forest and yet planting spinneys on their own lands.
Barb
Jon Hall
held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
> Jon Hall <jgc....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:<f3e0f5854...@tiscali.co.uk>...
> > In message <MPG.1aa5c06df...@news.online.no>
> > Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > in addition, the willow was often used as an emblem of sorrow and
> > > mourning. someone who had lost their lover was said to "wear the
> > > willow". although i doubt this is relevant, i find it most interesting.
> >
> > All around my hat....
>
> Lovely song, isn´t it? But I never knew that the fact she was wearing
> "the green willow" "for a 12 months and a day" around her hat, was a
> sign of *mourning*.
No - it's for her true love who is 'far far away'
Think 'Tie a Yellow Ribbon'....similar concept.
Jon.
TT Arvind
> we don't, but Merry seems to think they do. ("Well, well!" he said.
> "These trees do shift. There is the Bonfire Glade in front of us
Could it be possible that the trees were, perhaps, huorns or one of the
trees that were becoming entish? I think it rather unlikely that an
'ordinary' tree could move around.
--
Meneldil
Defend the right to keep and arm bears.
TT Arvind
> in addition, the willow was often used as an emblem of sorrow and
> mourning. someone who had lost their lover was said to "wear the
> willow". although i doubt this is relevant, i find it most interesting.
Do you? The idea of 'sorrow' fits in quite well with the "feel" of the
forest as regretting its decimation and domination by men who care
nothing for it or its trees as an end in itself.
You know, the general feel which Tolkien describes the Old Forest (and
for that matter Fangorn forest) as having is somewhat similar to that
which places like the remnants of the East Anglian fenlands give - a
sense of ancientness and untamable wildness. Does anyone feel similarly?
--
Meneldil
Zymurgy's Law of Volunteer Labor: People are always available for work
in the past tense.
Tamfiiris Entwife
> I haven´t and I´m glad glad I haven´t, as it´s snowing cats and dogs
> right now.
i see, the water would be too crowded for you?
> > hobbits, hobbit gnaws down tree.
> You are *definitely* one of AFT´s funniest posters.
woo hoo! <makes a badge and wears it proudly>
> One has to be a brave person to make wild speculations on AFT.
the world needs more courage.
[Shetland pony]
> > yes. now, which colour?
> Partly white and partly light brown?
that's my favourite colouring, but my female intuition says these ponies
were mostly brownish all over.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Tamfiiris Entwife
[cobwebs on hedge]
> I'm not sure the Hobbits remembered Bilbo's tales, but there is, IMO,
> a chance that the readers were supposed to remember Mirkwood.
well, i did - at least when reading the chapter and trying to think deep
thoughts about it - and it would make me very happy indeed if my
thoughts were following the Path That Tolkien Intended.
hmm, he's a bit like the Old Forest in that respect...
Tamfiiris Entwife
> This isn't a comment or a wild speculation, but ever since reading
> that they went through a spinney behind the house as they made their
> way across the fields, I've wondered: what is a spinney?
i wondered too, enought to look it up in the dictionary. however,
Alison's definition is better than mine.
> Merry was probably correct in saying generally that it was very much
> more alive, more aware of what is going on. But as for the rest of it
> -- their driving the hobbits toward the Withywindle -- well, perhaps,
> though I always wondered about those deep folds in the ground that
> helped force the hobbits down to the Withywindle -- how could the
> trees achieve that without Ents?
yes, the fact that the hobbits never see any movement on the part of the
trees is a good argument they are just imagining the trickery of the
forest.
of course, the landscape could already be formed that way with the trees
- which no doubt must have known the terrain well - taking advantage of
it. still, it does seem a little unbelievable that the trees in such an
ominous, still forest would go waltzing around the way the hobbits seem
to think they did.
> They have the tunnel there for when the fit takes them to go in
> (Brandybucks must be very moody), and what better response to a
> perceived threat from the living, green world than cold brick and hard
> iron. A surprisingly mordorish touch there from the hobbits.
so much for Tolkien the racist - i think he wants to show that every
race is capable of doing evil. the bad acts of the hobbits may not have
been very huge, but then, very few of their acts were.
[communicating trees]
> I know of four hobbits who would answer that question with a heartfelt
> "yes!" As for the Old Forest, the best bet would be communications
> via chemicals, through the leaves and root systems. Or maybe they're
> just all pawns, robotically following Old Man Willow's intense will.
i always imagined they'd be talking through leafy whispers in the air,
but there wasn't enough sound in the Old Forest when the hobbits were
there for that to have been the case. this explanation makes much more
sense. (thanks!)
Igenlode Wordsmith
> Why is the Bad Tree a willow, my favorite of trees?
To be boringly prosaic - because ancient willow-trees do indeed have
great cracks running back into the heart of the trunk, just as
described, which flex and groan in the wind like open mouths as if the
tree is alive...
(I wonder if this passage had its origin in some childhood nightmare of
Tolkien's? It's the sort of thing a small boy confronted by a gaping
willow-trunk might very well dream of.)
--
Igenlode <Igenl...@nym.alias.net> Bookwraith unabashed
Those jaded in their emotions demand monstrous things to arouse them
Igenlode Wordsmith
> Summary
>
> Frodo is woken up before dawn by an energetic Merry.
I've only just noticed that this ties in to the end of the chapter
before - he is 'shaken and bewildered' from his troubled dream, and
the bright light and noise of thunder turn out to be Merry with a
candle banging on the door, not a premonition of Gandalf on Weathertop
at all ;-)
[snip]
> The hobbits lunch on a naked hill above the forest roof, and are given a
> lesson in the local geography by Merry.
What *does* make the semi-permanent tracks through the Forest
("something makes paths")? Is it Tom Bombadil? Is it the trees
themselves, and if so why?
Why is this one hill not wooded, and why does the path from the Bonfire
Glade lead directly there, and then down (had they followed it) into
the Withywindle valley? Would they have met Tom earlier if they had
taken it?
[snip]
> We first meet the famous Tom Bombadil. As the author states, what he's
> singing is nonsense, and clearly, his rhymes are not meant to be
> poetical. However, his songs very much remind me of certain nonsense
> lines in British folk songs (for instance "to me ri-fol-lair-ry, fol-
> the-diddle-ay" or "must-a-whack-a-row-di-dow-now, right-a-fol-di-
> daddy"). If you just listen to Tom Bombadil's singing without trying to
> make sense of it, it's actually quite euphonious. Like "cellar door".
>
Tom's nonsense syllables remind me of the hobbits' impression of
Ent-speech - and the lookout hill reminds me of the hill on which they
first meet Treebeard... Given the theories about Old Man Willow, is it
possible that all Ent-forests have a spot where the tree-herds can look
out over their flocks?
--
Igenlode <Igenl...@nym.alias.net> Bookwraith unabashed
- I don't want to 'fit in' any more... - That makes two of us!
Bruce Tucker
> On 24 Feb 2004 Henriette wrote:
>
> > Why is the Bad Tree a willow, my favorite of trees?
>
> To be boringly prosaic - because ancient willow-trees do indeed have
> great cracks running back into the heart of the trunk, just as
> described, which flex and groan in the wind like open mouths as if the
> tree is alive...
>
> (I wonder if this passage had its origin in some childhood nightmare
of
> Tolkien's? It's the sort of thing a small boy confronted by a gaping
> willow-trunk might very well dream of.)
Boy howdy, a Freudian could take that and run a mile or two with it...
--
Bruce Tucker
disinte...@mindspring.com
Henriette
> žus cwęš Tamfiiris Entwife:
>
> > we don't, but Merry seems to think they do. ("Well, well!" he said.
> > "These trees do shift. There is the Bonfire Glade in front of us
>
> Could it be possible that the trees were, perhaps, huorns or one of the
> trees that were becoming entish? I think it rather unlikely that an
> 'ordinary' tree could move around.
Even when a strong will wanted it? I think they moved, under the
influence of Old Man Willow, with a little help of their own
resentment. IMO not less likely than a Ring making one invisible....
Henriette
Henriette
Well, at least he gave the lady in the Willow-hat "a fine diamond
ring". Maybe the man from the Yellow Ribbons did likewise, but did not
*buy* the ring, so he was locked up.
Henriette
Henriette
> help! Henriette has fallen in the water!
>
> > right now.
>
> i see, the water would be too crowded for you?
Yes. Cats, dogs, and all the people you pushed into it!
>
> [Shetland pony]
> > > yes. now, which colour?
> > Partly white and partly light brown?
>
> that's my favourite colouring, but my female intuition says these ponies
> were mostly brownish all over.
Yes, so does mine:-)
Henriette
Henriette
> On 24 Feb 2004 Henriette wrote:
>
> > Why is the Bad Tree a willow, my favorite of trees?
>
> To be boringly prosaic - because ancient willow-trees do indeed have
> great cracks running back into the heart of the trunk, just as
> described, which flex and groan in the wind like open mouths as if the
> tree is alive...
In the city our young willows don't get a chance to grow ancient. So I
simply wasn't aware of the cracks and the flex... Thank you for
explaining.
> (I wonder if this passage had its origin in some childhood nightmare of
> Tolkien's? It's the sort of thing a small boy confronted by a gaping
> willow-trunk might very well dream of.)
In any case he had a special connection with trees.
Henriette
Henriette
> help! Belba Grubb from Stock has fallen in the water!
>
>
> > I know of four hobbits who would answer that question with a heartfelt
> > "yes!" As for the Old Forest, the best bet would be communications
> > via chemicals, through the leaves and root systems. Or maybe they're
> > just all pawns, robotically following Old Man Willow's intense will.
>
> i always imagined they'd be talking through leafy whispers in the air,
> but there wasn't enough sound in the Old Forest when the hobbits were
> there for that to have been the case. this explanation makes much more
> sense. (thanks!)
Which explanation, because Barb gives two? I think the Old Man Willow
may accomplish a lot through his will (as we all may), but I still
think the trees also talk through leafy whispers, mainly in the night.
Henriette
Tamfiiris Entwife
> > Could it be possible that the trees were, perhaps, huorns or one of the
> > trees that were becoming entish? I think it rather unlikely that an
> > 'ordinary' tree could move around.
> Even when a strong will wanted it? I think they moved, under the
> influence of Old Man Willow, with a little help of their own
> resentment. IMO not less likely than a Ring making one invisible....
that Ring was no ordinary ring, though, as you are well aware. };8)
Ol'Man River, i mean Willow, must have had some serious personal power
if it were that alone which made the trees move about. to me, it's more
likely that the trees themselves were somewhat lively, and hostile to
hobbits, and that OMW was merely the orchestrator of their moves.
of course, he could originally have been a wizard who had become *very*
rooted to Middle Earth... or a Balrog...
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
probably not pondering what you are pondering.
Tamfiiris Entwife
[how trees communicate]
> Which explanation, because Barb gives two?
oh - hoom - i prefer the one where they communicate through the roots,
because i don't think OMW's power was that strong. he would have had to
have formidable super-powers if he were to be able to perceive the
hobbits, make a plan to catch them, and telepathically instruct the
trees about it all by himself.
> I think the Old Man Willow
> may accomplish a lot through his will (as we all may), but I still
> think the trees also talk through leafy whispers, mainly in the night.
singing with their leaves and talkin' tough through the roots, yeah.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Good Women are impossible to find these days! Anyone over 30 is probably
damaged goods. Anyone under 30 is covered in tattoos or pierced so many
times they leak in the shower.
Troels Forchhammer
Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> Could it be possible that the trees were, perhaps, huorns or one
> of the trees that were becoming entish? I think it rather
> unlikely that an 'ordinary' tree could move around.
I've been meaning to ask that ;-)
From the stories of both Tom and Treebeard I get the impression that
the Old Forest and Fangorn were once parts of the same huge wooded area
(I don't recall if this is stated explicitly), which makes it a bit
more likely that since there's a bit of 'entishness' in Fangorn, there
might also be a bit left in the Old Forest.
The ways the trees move and communicate do rather remind me of
Treebeard's stories of trees becoming entish.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)mail.dk>
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
- (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man)
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> help! Henriette has fallen in the water!
>
> [how trees communicate]
>
> > Which explanation, because Barb gives two?
>
> oh - hoom - i prefer the one where they communicate through the roots,
> because i don't think OMW's power was that strong. he would have had to
> have formidable super-powers if he were to be able to perceive the
> hobbits, make a plan to catch them, and telepathically instruct the
> trees about it all by himself.
If you have a look at the Unfinished Tails & the Council of E..., you'll
see that it was the WK who woke to malice all evil beings in the Old
Forest and the Barrow-downs.
Archie
Henriette
> help! Henriette has fallen in the water!
>
> > influence of Old Man Willow, with a little help of their own
> > resentment. IMO not less likely than a Ring making one invisible....
>
> that Ring was no ordinary ring, though, as you are well aware. };8)
>
> Ol'Man River, i mean Willow, must have had some serious personal power
> if it were that alone which made the trees move about. to me, it's more
> likely that the trees themselves were somewhat lively, and hostile to
> hobbits, and that OMW was merely the orchestrator of their moves.
That was exactly my wild speculation! (see above)
>
> of course, he could originally have been a wizard who had become *very*
> rooted to Middle Earth... or a Balrog...
This is *very* wild....
Henriette
Henriette
so we are making wild speculations!
Hi Archie, WB!
Henriette
put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru
> <put-the-no-mail-...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:<MPG.1aa8bfae24...@news.mtu-net.ru>...
> > Tamfiiris Entwife wrote:
> > > help! Henriette has fallen in the water!
> > >
> > > [how trees communicate]
> > If you have a look at the Unfinished Tails & the Council of E..., you'll
> > see that it was the WK who woke to malice all evil beings in the Old
> > Forest and the Barrow-downs.
> >
> Officially we don´t know about that. We only read 6 chapters thus far,
> so we are making wild speculations!
Jan and Feb due to a) technical failures, b) my desire to wait and see
the Return of the King. Now that I have seen the movie, I can go back to
AFT/RABT.
Archie
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
> > Officially we don´t know about that. We only read 6 chapters thus far,
> > so we are making wild speculations!
> Sorry for attempting to break the rules - I have missed discussions in
> Jan and Feb due to a) technical failures, b) my desire to wait and see
> the Return of the King. Now that I have seen the movie, I can go back to
> AFT/RABT.
>
Archie! Again you are breaking the rules! One does not admit freely on
AFT/RABT that one saw the ROTK-film (unless, e.g., "by accident") and
especially one does not speak about *waiting* and *desiring*! It is
sort of not politically correct. Also, one does not miss dicussions
due to technical failures!(Sigh) You have a lot of catching up to do!
:-)
Henriette
loisillon
> In message <news:MPG.1aa6ca59f...@news.individual.net> TT
> Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
> >
> > Could it be possible that the trees were, perhaps, huorns or one
> > of the trees that were becoming entish? I think it rather
> > unlikely that an 'ordinary' tree could move around.
>
> I've been meaning to ask that ;-)
>
> From the stories of both Tom and Treebeard I get the impression that
> the Old Forest and Fangorn were once parts of the same huge wooded area
> (I don't recall if this is stated explicitly), which makes it a bit
> more likely that since there's a bit of 'entishness' in Fangorn, there
> might also be a bit left in the Old Forest.
>
> The ways the trees move and communicate do rather remind me of
> Treebeard's stories of trees becoming entish.
As far as I remember, the ents did become similar to trees, by keeping
them for a long time , and not the trees similar to ents.
Troels Forchhammer
lois...@libertysurf.fr (loisillon) enriched us with:
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<Xns949BEC01...@62.243.74.163>...
>>
>> Treebeard's stories of trees becoming entish.
>
> As far as I remember, the ents did become similar to trees, by
> keeping them for a long time , and not the trees similar to ents.
It went both ways.
LotR, III, 4 'Treebeard':
'The trees and the Ents,' said Treebeard. 'I do not
understand all that goes on myself, so I cannot explain it to
you. Some of us are still true Ents, and lively enough in our
fashion, but many are growing sleepy, going tree-ish, as you
might say. Most of the trees are just trees, of course; but
many are half awake. Some are quite wide awake, and a few are,
well, ah, well getting Entish. That is going on all the time.'
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)mail.dk>
"What're quantum mechanics?"
"I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)
TT Arvind
> From the stories of both Tom and Treebeard I get the impression that
> the Old Forest and Fangorn were once parts of the same huge wooded area
> (I don't recall if this is stated explicitly), which makes it a bit
> more likely that since there's a bit of 'entishness' in Fangorn, there
> might also be a bit left in the Old Forest.
The last, at least, is fairly strongly hinted at by the walking tree
which a hobbit claims to have seen.
The ents becoming tree-ish and the trees becoming entish is something
that has quite intrigued me. My impression was that the ents were
special spirits who inhabited tree-like bodies. If trees can become
ents, it would imply either that there was an endless supply of these
spirits, and that these spirits could enter any tree (not just the body
of a newborn enting). How would this fit in with the idea that all
spirits can only be made by Eru? And what happened to the spirits of
Ents that became totally treeish (not just huornish)? Did they just 'go
to sleep', or did they at some stage depart to wherever it is that entish
spirits go?
--
Meneldil
Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of
themselves.
- Dorothy Parker
Hasmonean Tazmanian
TT Arvind wrote:
> Wes šu Troels Forchhammer hal!
There is a Biblical prophecy that in the last days, "even babes will
prophecy." This may be the inspiration for the type of Entish evolution
spotted in the trees, the herd (people, the trees) is becoming more like
the shepherd (Ents, prophets).
Hasan
Tamfiiris Entwife
> The ents becoming tree-ish and the trees becoming entish is something
> that has quite intrigued me. My impression was that the ents were
> special spirits who inhabited tree-like bodies. If trees can become
> ents, it would imply either that there was an endless supply of these
> spirits, and that these spirits could enter any tree (not just the body
> of a newborn enting).
maybe trees were becoming entish as a response to the decline in
entings, or to the steady woodification of Ents. if Ent spirits were
still being poured into Middle Earth (or perhaps they reincarnated),
without any entish bodies to enter, the spirits may settle for the
closest equivalent, i.e. a tree.
i just have to say it's a beautiful image, the keepers resembling their
herd and the herd resembling their keepers. somehow it reminds me of how
the Istari, who all became somewhat coloured by Middle Earth. it's quite
likely that Gandalf's friends, for instance, also received a hint of his
wisdom.
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
That which hath made them drunk hath made me bold;
What hath quench'd them hath given me fire.
Tamfiiris Entwife
> I've only just noticed that this ties in to the end of the chapter
> before - he is 'shaken and bewildered' from his troubled dream, and
> the bright light and noise of thunder turn out to be Merry with a
> candle banging on the door, not a premonition of Gandalf on Weathertop
> at all ;-)
hmmm... maybe Merry was somehow told that he should enter at that time,
so that Frodo would have the right dream? }:8)
> What *does* make the semi-permanent tracks through the Forest
> ("something makes paths")? Is it Tom Bombadil? Is it the trees
> themselves, and if so why?
well, either they are made by animals living in the forest, or by Tom
Bombadil, or by the trees themselves. i think we can rule out hobbit or
other humanoid travellers, for the forest seems a little visited place.
we don't see any animals - but then, you seldom do in a forest,
especially during daytime. any animal living there must be accustomed to
looking out for itself, and avoiding the hobbits on ponies should be
easy enough. what kinds of animals? they would need to be quite large to
make noticeable paths. deer, perhaps, like there were in Mirkwood.
the trees could also make the paths all by themselves just to trick
visitors, or for some other unknown purpose.
Tom Bombadil - well, he probably made some paths, such as the one along
the Withywindle. but he must have worn down his yellow boots quite fast
if he were to tramp along every one of them!
> Why is this one hill not wooded,
in norway, there are some hills made out of old rock that is so hard no
trees manage to settle on them. they have been slightly polished by rain
and wind through the millennia, and some may have grass, moss or heather
in their crevices, but trees need a bit more soil than that. that's the
kind of hill i imagine for this scene.
> and why does the path from the Bonfire
> Glade lead directly there, and then down (had they followed it) into
> the Withywindle valley? Would they have met Tom earlier if they had
> taken it?
and surprised him as he was diving naked for water lilies? NO THANKS!
> Tom's nonsense syllables remind me of the hobbits' impression of
> Ent-speech - and the lookout hill reminds me of the hill on which they
> first meet Treebeard... Given the theories about Old Man Willow, is it
> possible that all Ent-forests have a spot where the tree-herds can look
> out over their flocks?
both of these thoughts really appeal to me. Tom does indeed have some
qualities in common with Fangorn; for instance, they're both fond of
talking, their words are a bit like musice, they're older than old, and
they know a lot. maybe Tom was the original entherd...
about the hill - as i said, i imagine this as a natural phenomenon. but
i imagine most ents would take advantage of those when they found them.
the softrat
<fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Hmmmm......
Are you reely a 'lellow dragon' herd?
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Discordianism: Where reality is a figment of your imagination
Belba Grubb from Stock
wrote:
> If trees can become ents, it would imply either that there was an
>endless supply of these spirits, and that these spirits could enter
>any tree (not just the body of a newborn enting). How would this
>fit in with the idea that all spirits can only be made by Eru?
There was a limit put on their presence, that the spirits summoned
from afar would "go among the kelvar and the olvar [it would seem they
could enter more beings than just trees...BB], and some will dwell
therein," but that this would only happen while the Elves were in
their power and Men were young.
>what happened to the spirits of Ents that became totally treeish
>(not just huornish)? Did they just 'go to sleep', or did they at some
>stage depart to wherever it is that entish spirits go?
Perhaps they would go back to wherever they came from, and a tree,
alas, even Treebeard, would just be a tree after that.
Barb
Tamfiiris Entwife
> Are you reely a 'lellow dragon' herd?
i can be a stampede if you want!
--
Tamf, lellow dwagin and CHOKLIT-eater at your service.
Les sorciers lorsqu'ils font de terrifiantes conneries, on accuse
toujours l'apprenti. (Jacques Prévert)
Belba Grubb from Stock
<fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>Feel free to drag writings from this chapter, other Tolkien works, or
>your own wild speculations into this discussion.
The Disney thread reminded me of this, although of course "The Wizard
of Oz" of 1939 was made and released by MGM (though WB owns it now).
Does anyone else think this JRRT description:
"...and if they looked up to the pale sky, they caught sight
of queer gnarled and knobbly faces that gloomed dark against
the twilight, and leered down at them from the high bank and
the edges of the wood."
is strongly reminiscent of a brief shot in "The Wizard of Oz" during
the scene where they're going through the woods on the way to the
Wicked Witch's castle and there are indeed "gnarled and knobbly faces"
glooming darkly against the twilight, leering down at them?
If so, and it's not just my own warped imagination, the timing could
be right for JRRT to have been influenced by the movie, no?
Barb
the softrat
<ba...@dbtech.net> wrote:
>
>The Disney thread reminded me of this, although of course "The Wizard
>of Oz" of 1939 was made and released by MGM (though WB owns it now).
>Does anyone else think this JRRT description:
>
> "...and if they looked up to the pale sky, they caught sight
> of queer gnarled and knobbly faces that gloomed dark against
> the twilight, and leered down at them from the high bank and
> the edges of the wood."
>
>is strongly reminiscent of a brief shot in "The Wizard of Oz" during
>the scene where they're going through the woods on the way to the
>Wicked Witch's castle and there are indeed "gnarled and knobbly faces"
>glooming darkly against the twilight, leering down at them?
>
>If so, and it's not just my own warped imagination, the timing could
>be right for JRRT to have been influenced by the movie, no?
>
And you ARE warped.
the softrat
"LotR: Eleven Oscars! Right up there with _Titanic_!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Belba Grubb from Stock
wrote:
>>If so, and it's not just my own warped imagination, the timing could
>>be right for JRRT to have been influenced by the movie, no?
>>
>NO!
>
>And you ARE warped.
And all that time I thought it was the room listing about me. Okay
then. Nice to find a home away from home.
Barb
_____
____
Freedom means never having to be political.
____
Brenda Selwyn
> There is one thing I didn't notice during my first readings: it is that
>even when he talks, Tom he talks in rhythm. Though admitted may it be, it's
>sometimes hard to follow.
I also only noticed this fairly recently when reading out loud to my
son. Somehow it makes Tom more endearing; I used to find him rather
irritating before.
Brenda
--
*************************************************************************
Brenda Selwyn
"In England's green and pleasant land"
"If we were 'grown up' and 'had a clue' we wouldn't be wasting our time
posting here." - The Softrat
Raven
news:fb1q405gh6kta9jbe...@4ax.com...
> >"Raven" <jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> > There is one thing I didn't notice during my first readings: it is
> >that even when he talks, Tom he talks in rhythm. Though
> >admitted may it be, it's sometimes hard to follow.
> I also only noticed this fairly recently when reading out loud to my
> son. Somehow it makes Tom more endearing; I used to find him rather
> irritating before.
In the post that you replied to, I did just the same thing. No-one has
commented it; did anybody notice? :-)
Brân.
Brenda Selwyn
> In the post that you replied to, I did just the same thing. No-one has
>commented it; did anybody notice? :-)
Um yes, now you come to mention it I did notice when you first posted
it, but by the time I'd got around to posting the reply I'd
forgotten:-)
Taemon
> Also, one does not miss dicussions due to technical
failures!(Sigh) You
> have a lot of catching up to do!
Hi. I'm back on-line, until the next time my computer breaks
down. I'm NOT going to catch up.
Greetings, T.
Henriette
got lost in the process :-(
Henriette
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:28:01 -0000,
> Tamfiiris Entwife <fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>> sleep, but also saved by it. What does this reflect, if anything -
>> the magical power song has in Middle Earth? The fact that this power
>> can be both used and misused?
>
> As I recall, song is how Luthien toppled the original Minas Tirith
> and put Morgoth to sleep. It seems that song does have potency.
Not least being the creation songs of the Ainulindale!
Plus Yavanna singing to create the Trees, Sun and Moon.
And many other examples.
Morgoth's Curse
thoughts especially in regard to the tunnel in the hedge.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:28:01 -0000, Tamfiiris Entwife
<fighti...@a-spamfree.world.invalid> wrote:
>Comments & Questions
>
>Feel free to drag writings from this chapter, other Tolkien works, or
>your own wild speculations into this discussion.
>
>
>This is a chapter that leads into the unknown. The hobbits leave the
>Shire, locking the gate behind them, and venture into unfamiliar
>territory. This is symbolised by the dense mist that envelops them as
>they set out, and returns to do so in the evening. However, the mist
>doesn't reach Tom Bombadil's, which signals a small respite from the big
>wide world. His garden is neat and ordered in an English manner, which
>must be very comforting to the hobbits. But why does he have such a
>pretty garden? Doesn't he like the forest?
I concur with the suggestion that the garden was more likely tended by
Goldberry rather than Tom. Tom, like the Ents, seems perfectly
content to roam the countryside without altering it whereas Goldberry
shares the Entwives' love of peace and order.
>
>This chapter is called, and takes place in, the Old Forest. The forest
>has already been mentioned several times in the previous chapter, and
>now both readers and hobbits will find out if the rumours about it are
>true. Are they?
I suspect that the darkest tales were deliberately exaggerated
somewhat in order to keep adventuresome young hobbit lads and lasses
out of the forest. ;-)
>
>The forest Hedge is covered in cobwebs. Is this a sign from the author
>saying "Danger. Keep Out"? Do you think any of the hobbits remembered
>the spiders of Mirkwood at this stage, or had other premonitions?
I agree with Troels that Tolkien likely intended the reader, rather
than the hobbits, to be reminded of Mirkwood. I am sure that the
hobbits were more familiar with spiders and other insects than the
many of us are in this day and age of pesticides and modern
sanitation. (Incidentally, I wonder if hobbits filled their homes
with certain plants which are known to discourage spiders and other
pests?)
>They enter the forest through a tunnel and gate, made out of brick and
>iron. Why would the Brandybucks create such an elaborate entrance into a
>place that seemed to be so unwelcoming? Were they just adventurous, or
>had they been thinking ahead?
Many of the participants in this discussion have made interesting
suggestions, but no one has yet suggested that the tunnel served a
dual purpose of entry / exit and as a reference point. IRRC, the
hedge was very tall and thick and as such was impenetrable. It was
also twenty miles long from end to end and the forest itself was
obviously much larger. The hobbits probably originally built the
entrance in order to tend the hedge and cut down any trees that might
grow too close to it, but in time it would also become the starting
point of an intriguing maze for inquisitive young hobbits. As long as
a hobbit marked his trail or did not lose his sense of direction, he
could explore the forest without the necessity of traveling twenty or
thirty miles around the hedge.
I also suspect the entrance was sturdily constructed of brick because
otherwise water and the roots of the hedge itself as well of the
nearby trees would have caused it to collapse within a few years.
>
>We are told about the Forest encroaching on the Hedge, threatening to
>swallow it. Would the trees actually have entered the Shire if the
>Hobbits hadn't fought it so fiercely? Was this a "necessary war"?
The trees were probably hostile to people long before hobbits founded
the Shire and I suspect that generations of hobbits had been raised on
horror stories of the Old Forest. Their reaction does seem almost
hysterical. I do find it curious that the dominion of the Forest
seems to end at or near the Brandywine. There is never any hint of a
similar darkness in the woods of the Shire.
>Was this conflict the only reason the Forest resented the
>hobbits, or did the trees have a general reason for disliking two-
>footers?
The Old Forest was one of the very few areas that escaped the axes of
the Numenoreans when they harvested timber for their fleets and the
devastation that Sauron inflicted on Eriador. I would say that the
trees had very good reason to detest anything that went on two feet.
>As the chapter begins, Frodo is still shaken by his dream, whereas Merry
>is friskily prepared for the journey ahead. Further indications of
>Frodo's spiritual personality versus Merry's being a man of action?
I also like to think of it as Tolkien's rueful comment on the
advantages of age. He had four children when he began writing this
book and every parent knows how amazing it is that kids seem to have
boundless energy.
In conclusion, allow me to add my voice to the chorus praising
Tamfiiris Entwife for job well done! ^_^
Morgoth's Curse
JJ
<morgothscurse2...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am resurrecting this ancient thread in order to contribute a few
> thoughts especially in regard to the tunnel in the hedge.
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:28:01 -0000, Tamfiiris Entwife
>
beneficial in that they catch flies, which are pests. The hobbits
probably knew enough to leave a spider web or two in strategic
positions. Cobwebs, though, are webs which have become disused and
dirty and should be cleaned up.
Derek Broughton
> Most unlikely. Spiders are not pests - quite the reverse, they are
> beneficial in that they catch flies, which are pests. The hobbits
> probably knew enough to leave a spider web or two in strategic
> positions. Cobwebs, though, are webs which have become disused and
> dirty and should be cleaned up.
True, but I'll just add an entomological note, tieing into the spiders of
Mirkwood, that "Cob" just means spider, so strictly speaking it just means
"Spider web", though we use it generally as you say. Bilbo's insults that
so riled the spiders in Mirkwood ("Attercop, attercop, can't catch me",
iirc) use the same root for "spider" (I once knew what "atter" means, and
that's the part that spiders hate).
Raven
news:7hme36-...@pointerstop.ca...
> Bilbo's insults that so riled the spiders in Mirkwood ("Attercop,
> attercop,
> can't catch me", iirc) use the same root for "spider" (I once knew what
> "atter" means, and that's the part that spiders hate).
The Norwegian word for spider is "edderkopp", which is the same as
"attercop", literally meaning "poison cup". "Edder" is an archaic word for
poison; the modern word is "gift", which funnily enough also means
"married", the latter meaning at a guess being derived from "give".
<scand linguistics: no matter how thin the thin end of the wedge...>
Ramn.
Derek Broughton
> "Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:7hme36-...@pointerstop.ca...
>
>> Bilbo's insults that so riled the spiders in Mirkwood ("Attercop,
>> attercop,
>> can't catch me", iirc) use the same root for "spider" (I once knew what
>> "atter" means, and that's the part that spiders hate).
>
> The Norwegian word for spider is "edderkopp", which is the same as
> "attercop", literally meaning "poison cup". "Edder" is an archaic word
> for poison; the modern word is "gift", which funnily enough also means
> "married", the latter meaning at a guess being derived from "give".
Of course - as also in "adder", the only poisonous snake in Britain.
> <scand linguistics: no matter how thin the thin end of the wedge...>
Where would Tolkien have been without Scand linguistics?
Öjevind Lång
news:u03f36-...@pointerstop.ca...
[snip]
>> The Norwegian word for spider is "edderkopp", which is the same as
>> "attercop", literally meaning "poison cup". "Edder" is an archaic word
>> for poison; the modern word is "gift", which funnily enough also means
>> "married", the latter meaning at a guess being derived from "give".
>
> Of course - as also in "adder", the only poisonous snake in Britain.
>
>> <scand linguistics: no matter how thin the thin end of the wedge...>
>
> Where would Tolkien have been without Scand linguistics?
:-D
By the way, the Swedish words for "poison" are "gift" and "etter" - both
very much alive.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
> "Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandet
> news:u03f36-...@pointerstop.ca...
>
> [snip]
>
>>> The Norwegian word for spider is "edderkopp", which is the same as
>>> "attercop", literally meaning "poison cup". "Edder" is an archaic word
>>> for poison; the modern word is "gift", which funnily enough also means
>>> "married", the latter meaning at a guess being derived from "give".
>>
>> Of course - as also in "adder", the only poisonous snake in Britain.
>>
>>> <scand linguistics: no matter how thin the thin end of the wedge...>
>>
>> Where would Tolkien have been without Scand linguistics?
>
> By the way, the Swedish words for "poison" are "gift" and "etter" - both
> very much alive.
So, now I have to guess that the phrase "don't look a gift horse in the
mouth" came from Scandinavia. Must have had something to do with their
fangs... Probably you're going to tell me that in Norwegian and Swedish,
"horse" is the word for "snake" :-)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> By the way, the Swedish words for "poison" are "gift" and "etter" -
>> both
>> very much alive.
>
> So, now I have to guess that the phrase "don't look a gift horse in the
> mouth" came from Scandinavia. Must have had something to do with their
> fangs... Probably you're going to tell me that in Norwegian and Swedish,
> "horse" is the word for "snake" :-)
No, but I can with complete truthfulness tell you that the Swedish name for
Mickey Mouse is Musse Pigg. :-)
The Swedish word for "snake" is "orm". Our word for "worm" is "mask".
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
"Raven" <jon.lennart.be...@mail.its.in.danmark> spoke
these staves:
>
<snip>
> The Norwegian word for spider is "edderkopp",
As is the Danish, of course ;)
> which is the same as "attercop", literally meaning "poison cup".
And 'kop'/'cup' actually means 'head' (as in German 'Kopf'). So Bilbo
is actually calling the spiders 'poison-heads'.
> "Edder" is an archaic word for poison;
Outside 'edderkop' it appears only very rarely in modern Danish, and
always in compounds or idioms (some of which have probably long fallen
into disuse by recent generations, but I tend to retain a vocabulary
that is likely more than a little outdated <GG>).
> the modern word is "gift", which funnily enough also means
> "married", the latter meaning at a guess being derived from
> "give".
Which makes me wonder about the verb 'to poison', which in Danish is
'forgive' (yeah, it's true!). I wonder if these are from the same
Germannic stem or what the etymology is? Where are our resident
philologists when we need them? ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was
standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Sir Isaac Newton
Dirk Thierbach
> Which makes me wonder about the verb 'to poison', which in Danish is
> 'forgive' (yeah, it's true!). I wonder if these are from the same
> Germannic stem or what the etymology is?
German for 'to poison' is 'vergiften', so I guess these are indeed
from the same germanic stem. English 'to forgive' is 'vergeben' in
German. So I suppose the source for the possible confusion is the
change from b->v (as in 'geben' -> engl. 'to give', 'leben' -> 'to live',
etc.).
- Dirk
Paul S. Person
The vowels also seem to have shifted from "e" to "i", but I have no
idea if that matters.
When, as an English speaker, I studied German, "Gift" was used as the
perfect example of the concept of the "false cognate".
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Taemon
> German for 'to poison' is 'vergiften', so I guess these are indeed
> from the same germanic stem. English 'to forgive' is 'vergeben' in
> German.
Dutch (which is of course only pet-German):
To poison: vergiftigen
To forgive: vergeven
Poison: Gif
A gift: Gift :-) (although "kado" or "cadeau" is more usual)
"Etter" means "pus" and that's how the spiders are called, "etterkop" ("kop"
meaning "head of an animal").
An "adder" is the local poisonous snake (rare now, of course).
T.
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> German for 'to poison' is 'vergiften', so I guess these are indeed
>> from the same germanic stem. English 'to forgive' is 'vergeben' in
>> German.
> Dutch (which is of course only pet-German):
Don't be so condescending about your own language :-)
> To poison: vergiftigen
> To forgive: vergeven
> Poison: Gif
> A gift: Gift :-) (although "kado" or "cadeau" is more usual)
German solved this problem by using a different verb, "schenken" ("make
a gift") with noun "Geschenk". "cadeau" > "kado" looks like it was
imported from French. Wiktionary says about its etymology,
Provençal /capdel/, ("illuminated capital", then "ornament"), from
Latin /capitellum/ (compare /chapiteau/).
No idea if this is accurate or just a wild guess.
> "Etter" means "pus" and that's how the spiders are called, "etterkop" ("kop"
> meaning "head of an animal").
Ah, so the word actually exists in Dutch. Does Dutch have a different word
for the head of a human (as you explicitely said "of an animal")?
> An "adder" is the local poisonous snake (rare now, of course).
The German variant has a leading N for whatever reason, "Natter".
I've never heard about any composition with "Kopf" (head).
- Dirk
Derek Broughton
> Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> An "adder" is the local poisonous snake (rare now, of course).
>
> The German variant has a leading N for whatever reason, "Natter".
> I've never heard about any composition with "Kopf" (head).
That's not so uncommon in English, though it seems odder in German. In
English we get migrations from "A napple" to "An apple" (I don't remember if
apple's actually a valid example - I know I once knew a couple of these).
Paul S. Person
For some reason, the /American Heritage Dictionary/ turns out to be
quite helpful here. You are correct in your suspicion that "apple" was
never "napple". The poster who stated that "adder" was once "nadder"
is also correct. The example I have previously encountered is "auger",
which was originally "nauger".
This all has to do with Indo-European roots and which of /those/ start
with an "n".
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9B8D7374...@147.243.252.16...
[snip]
>> the modern word is "gift", which funnily enough also means
>> "married", the latter meaning at a guess being derived from
>> "give".
>
> Which makes me wonder about the verb 'to poison', which in Danish is
> 'forgive' (yeah, it's true!). I wonder if these are from the same
> Germannic stem or what the etymology is? Where are our resident
> philologists when we need them? ;-)
One Swedish word for "forgiveness" is "tillgift".
Öjevind
Morgoth's Curse
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Holy Smokes! Do my eyes deceive me or has the legendary China Blue
actually returned to the Tolkien newsgroups?!!
Morgoth's Curse
Odysseus
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
["adder" from "næddre"]
> That's not so uncommon in English, though it seems odder in German. In
> English we get migrations from "A napple" to "An apple" (I don't remember if
> apple's actually a valid example - I know I once knew a couple of these).
Not "apple": having a root that goes back to PIE, it has cognates in
various European languages -- pretty recognizable not only in Ger.
_Apfel_, but even in e.g. the Gaelic _ubhal_. You're probably thinking
of "a norange" (cf. Sp. _naranja_) having become "an orange".
Such a migration would be unlikely to occur in German because the
article varies according to case and gender: any tendency to hear _der
Apfel_ as _die Rapfel_, for example, would be countered by also hearing
the word following _den_, _des_, &c.
Back to English quirks, in a vaguely similar slip "some pease" got
construed as "more than one pea". I was once told that (a) Newfoundland
dialect uses "link" for the singular of "lynx".
--
Odysseus
Öjevind Lång
news:g43k36-...@pointerstop.ca...
[snip]
>> The German variant has a leading N for whatever reason, "Natter".
>> I've never heard about any composition with "Kopf" (head).
>
> That's not so uncommon in English, though it seems odder in German. In
> English we get migrations from "A napple" to "An apple" (I don't remember
> if
> apple's actually a valid example - I know I once knew a couple of these).
A Swedish example is "ni", which is the pronoun used to address more than
one person (or one person when speaking formally). Originally, the pronoun
indicating the second person plural was "I". The plural form of verbs in
interrogative mode was "-en": "Haven I ...?" = "Have you (people) ...?";
"Ären I ...?" = "Are you (people) ...?"; "Kommen I?" "Are you (people)
coming?" When the noun "I" fell out of use in many areas, the "-n +I" were
misunderstood as one word: "ni", and that is now the standard pronoun in all
Sweden for "you (people") or "you (sir)".
Floreat lingua Nordica!
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
> In article <g43k36-...@pointerstop.ca>,
> Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
> ["adder" from "næddre"]
>
>> That's not so uncommon in English, though it seems odder in German. In
>> English we get migrations from "A napple" to "An apple" (I don't remember
>> if apple's actually a valid example - I know I once knew a couple of
>> these).
>
> Not "apple": having a root that goes back to PIE, it has cognates in
> various European languages -- pretty recognizable not only in Ger.
> _Apfel_, but even in e.g. the Gaelic _ubhal_. You're probably thinking
> of "a norange" (cf. Sp. _naranja_) having become "an orange".
I was indeed.
>
> Such a migration would be unlikely to occur in German because the
> article varies according to case and gender:
Exactly. That's why I said it seemed "odder" in German.
>
> Back to English quirks, in a vaguely similar slip "some pease" got
> construed as "more than one pea". I was once told that (a) Newfoundland
> dialect uses "link" for the singular of "lynx".
That seems highly unlikely, though I don't think they have Lynx on the
island. I've certainly never heard it [I don't live in Newfoundland, but I
know many - I work in Halifax, NS, which has long been the first destination
of Newfoundlanders looking for work], though I confess the subject of Lynx
doesn't often come up in conversation :-)
John W Kennedy
And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor" close
behind.
Dirk Thierbach
> And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
> has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor" close
> behind.
Well, I always found it strange that a single object needs a plural
word just because it has two legs (or two what-do-you-call-it for
scissors -- arms? blades?). So I can't say I'm against this change --
both words are singular in German, BTW. :-)
Now if the US could just take this "make stuff simpler" idea to its
logical conclusion and introduce metric units, that would be
something ... :-)
- Dirk
Julian Bradfield
> And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
> has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor" close
> behind.
Glad to hear that Americans are still working on ironing out the
absurdities of English.
F.Y.I., Americans have been working on "pant" for about a century, so
it's taken its time to become popular.
"Scissor" appeared in the 15th century in Britain, but sadly didn't
take off.
Derek Broughton
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
>> has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor" close
>> behind.
>
> Well, I always found it strange that a single object needs a plural
> word just because it has two legs (or two what-do-you-call-it for
> scissors -- arms? blades?).
No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
However, I've always been in favor of American simplifications of the
language. Though I still frequently would write "in favour".
Julian Bradfield
> No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
No it's not. It's "a pair of scissors".
In my book, two of something is plural.
Derek Broughton
> On 2009-01-12, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>> No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
>
> No it's not. It's "a pair of scissors".
Didn't you ever have English classes? Heavens, English teachers love to
stomp on you for saying "pair of scissors"
> In my book, two of something is plural.
That would be true, but there's no such thing as a pair of scissors.
Tamf Moo
>>> No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
>> No it's not. It's "a pair of scissors".
this is so uplifting! i'm forever confusing myself over whether
"scissors" is plural or singular (coping strategy: i usually refer to
the thingy in question as "skissorz", evading all need to be
grammatically correct by cunning use of silly). this debate makes me
feel like less of a dumb foreigner.
> Didn't you ever have English classes? Heavens, English teachers love to
> stomp on you for saying "pair of scissors"
i'm now thirsting for further discussion on the plurality, legality and
eligibility of "haxorz".
--
tamf.
Tamf Moo
> A Swedish example is "ni", which is the pronoun used to address more
> than one person (or one person when speaking formally). Originally, the
> pronoun indicating the second person plural was "I". The plural form of
> verbs in interrogative mode was "-en": "Haven I ...?" = "Have you
> (people) ...?"; "Ären I ...?" = "Are you (people) ...?"; "Kommen I?"
> "Are you (people) coming?" When the noun "I" fell out of use in many
> areas, the "-n +I" were misunderstood as one word: "ni", and that is now
> the standard pronoun in all Sweden for "you (people") or "you (sir)".
how ninteresting -- swedish seems to have received a nespecial blessing
from tyope. i'm trying to find out if the personal pronoun "okke"
(meaning "us") found in some dialect of norwegian is derived in a
similar way from "dokke" (meaning "you") in nearby dialects. but google
is not very helpful, being overly helpful ("Did you mean to search for:
okee dokee?")
this process, which has give nenglish great words like "nuncle" and
"naunt", is called "metanalysis", the OED (helpful in the right way)
tells me.
> Floreat lingua Nordica!
nindeed!
--
tamf
in a nole in the ground, there lived a nobbit...
Troels Forchhammer
Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:
Somebody protested this, which surprised me since the above rang true
to my vague recollections of English lessons more than a quarter of
century ago, so I went to check the net ;-)
The AskOxford site has:
plural noun 1 (also a pair of scissors)
<http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/scissors?view=uk>
The Cambridge dictionary site also has it as 'plural noun' and also
mentions 'a pair of scissors'
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=70421&dict=CALD>
Things may of course be different in American English. I'm not sure I
can quite decipher the Merriam-Webster explanation of the function:
'noun plural but singular or plural in construction'
(<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scissors>), but appears
to me to make it a plural noun.
Oddly, in Danish it is singular though it ought to be plural. The
Danish word is "saks" which is an old word for a one-edged blade. Two
of these are used to form a pair of scissors, but in modern Danish
this fact is ignored. According to the Merriam-Webster entry cited
above, the English word is also derived from an old (originally
Latin) word for a cutting instrument, two of which forms a pair of
scissors.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
- Niels Bohr, to a young physicist
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Well, I always found it strange that a single object needs a plural
>> word just because it has two legs (or two what-do-you-call-it for
>> scissors -- arms? blades?).
> No, no, it's not a plural word. It _is_ "a scissors".
I'm not sure exactly what you are critizing -- the latin word is
"scindere", "to cut". One thing with which you cut is then a "scissor".
If you have more then one (in this case two, because it refers to
the arms/blades), you add the English plural suffix, so it becomes
"scissors". So that's a plural form (or "a plural word", I am not sure
what the exact English term is), even though grammatically it is
singular.
- Dirk
tenworld
> On 1/10/09 10:18 PM, Odysseus wrote:
>
> And in the foetid swamp of illiteracy that is the United States, "pant"
> has become all but universal in the last ten years, with "scissor" close
at least we don't spell it scissour