the 🧝Elves of Mirkwood

[Starflower]

I was just reading the bit where the dwarves are captured by the wood-elves. It seems to me that the Elves were unnecessarily cruel towards the dwarves, lighting the fires, and extinguishing them as soon as the dwarves appeared, then capturing them in the dark and jailing them at once. The Elven-king especially seems a cold and cruel person, not at all like the Elves in LOTR. Any ideas as to why Tolkien chose to change the Elves so much when he wrote LOTR ? It can't just be because Hobbit was meant for a younger audience, in many places it is very scary...

 

[Snaga]

Interesting question. I think they are more depicted as unfriendly to dwarves, and protective of themselves. They are also greedy in relation to Smaug's treasure, and rather too fond of Dorwinion wine. On the other hand they are concerned for the fate of the Lakemen.

If you read earlier versions of the tale of Tinuviel, you will find that King Thingol is portrayed in similar style. Rustic but proud, rude and unwise but not evil. In later accounts he became wiser and "higher". It seems to me that the wood elves of The Hobbit are similar in conception to Tolkien's original wood elves.

 

[Jan]

Tolkien's characters changed and grew as the stories progressed, and, I suppose, the elves did, too. Perhaps Tolkien himself grew as the years passed and he continued shaping Middle Earth. Maybe this accounts for the difference in the elves in Hobbit, LoTR, and Silmarillion.

 

[krash8765]

plus Thranduil and his elves remembered how the dwarves slaughtered all of menegroth and took the silmarill

 

[Starflower]

but then again in LOTR Elrond is kind and courteous to Gloin and Gimli when they come to Rivendell, and it's unlikely that Thranduil was around when Menegroth was sacked. Why would they not think bit closer, think about the close relations between the Dwarves of Moria and the Elves of Eregion ? Surely Tolkien didn't just change the character of the elves out of a whim ? If he meant the two books to be connected, why make such an unexplained change?

 

[Hobbit-GalRosie]

Yes, but the Sylvan Elves were always of a somewhat darker and wilder nature, and kept more to themselves from the very beginning. While Thranduil may or may not have been alive at the time of its occurence, the sack of Menegroth is not the sort of thing that would soon be forgotten among any people of Elves, and it doesn't sound like the glorious but comparitively passing alliance of Eregion and Moria effected relations much elsewhere.

It's also only fair to keep in mind that The Hobbit got "drawn up" as it were into the larger mythology after the fact, and the complex history of Dwarves and Elves and the enmity between them could not have been so fully developed back in the 30's as it later became. Tolkien meant for them to be connected, but they could not be seemlessly woven when he had not originally conceived of The Hobbit as an extension of his mythology.

 

[Hirila]

Weren't the Elves of Mirkwood from the "race" of the Moriquendi, those who have never seen the light of the trees? That alone would make them "less" dignified in the meaning that all the Vanyar, Noldor and Telerin are the elves of "highest" rank. And again, the Wood Elves most likely even refused to cross the Misty Mountains on their way west from Cuivienen. Which sheds an even darker light on them.

I think, that as a race in themselves, the elves are good in themselves. But what comes with going further and further to the west, that is, nearer and nearer to the "light" is, that if you refuse to go tehre, you don't get the complete elven education, you miss the polish in politeness, wisdom, power of judgement etc. All these little things that distuingish the High Elves of the others.

But this is only of meaning if you connect The Hobbit to the history of Middle Earth.
Sure, ME already existed when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, but as far as I know he didn't really connect the two tales deliberately. So I guess that in The Hobbit the elves are just another strange people Bilbo encounters on his way.

 

[Beorn]

Don't forget that also at this time, The Necromancer was stirring in the southern ends of Mirkwood. Surely the Elves had noticed the growing evil influence in the forest. Knowing the fight between the dwarves and elves, they may have suspected that Sauron had in fact convinced the Dwarves to start a fight. They may have even percived the greedy group as a sort of recon mission.

When the darkness is stirring, everyone is cautious. Look how poorly Gandalf was received in many places near the end of the TA...

 

[Walter]

But this is only of meaning if you connect The Hobbit to the history of Middle Earth.
Sure, ME already existed when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, but as far as I know he didn't really connect the two tales deliberately. So I guess that in The Hobbit the elves are just another strange people Bilbo encounters on his way.

Indeed. By the time The Hobbit was written, there was only little connection to the Legendarium and the history of his Elves.

The Wood-elves are probably still more closely connected to the döckâlfar of Germanic/Nordic tales than to Tolkien's Gnomes.

However, Tolkien seems to allude to the "Nauglafring"-tale when he writes:

It was also the dungeon of his prisoners. So to the cave they dragged Thorin-not too gently, for they did not love dwarves, and thought he was an enemy. In ancient days they had had wars with some of the dwarves, whom they accused of stealing their treasure. It is only fair to say that the dwarves gave a different account, and said that they only took what was their due, for the elf-king had bargained with them to shape his raw gold and silver, and had afterwards refused to give them their pay.

This alone would be able to serve as an explanation for the animosity of the Wood-elves towards a party of 13 dwarves within their territory.

But Tolkien seems at great pains to explain that the Wood-elves are not really evil, albeit more dangerous and less wise than the High-elves:

The feasting people were Wood-elves, of course. These are not wicked folk. If they have a fault it is distrust of strangers. Though their magic was strong, even in those days they were wary. They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise.

 

[Confusticated]

Eregion was populated with Noldorin elves, who shared a deep love of craftsmanship with the dwarves. They had common interest, and profit from friendship with eachother. The Noldorin culture was different than that of the Mirkwood elves.


Snaga already compared them with the elves of Doriath. It's fair to point out that while the earliest version of Thingol was a lot different than he later would be, this might also be blamed on the fact that Thingol himself got a new history. One in which he had been to Aman. Thingol's elves went from being pretty much Avari to being as close to Calaquendi as the Eldar can get without actually being Calaquendi. This is not just because of their Calaquende King, but also Melian, and many of the group of Teleri had been in contact with the Vala Orome and with some Maiar other than Melian.

The Sindar surpassed the dark elves in wisdom and skill as much as the dark elves surpassed men. Mirkwood was, in my opinion, though some may disagree, a mostly Avarin realm... unlike ALL others we heard about. But at the least they might have been Nandor, which were probably only different from the Avari in that they took a little longer decide they didn't need to go into the West. Thranduil's elves might have been a much like the Laiquendi as they were the Sindar. All the silvan type realms we see have leaders that seem more cold than the Noldor kings were. I think it was in their nature/culture to be more secretive and protective of their realms. Thinking of Doriath, Lothlorien, Ossiriand and Thranduil's kingdom. This may be in part because of difference in architecture of their homes, and amount/type of weapons... the whole wood elf ways of life.

The Fellowship's welcome in Lothlorien was not very warm , and I suspect if they had been on a quest any less important (with no Aragorn) they'd have been treated much like Thorin's company.

Rivendell was just a more friendly and open place.


So what I am trying to say here is I'd not chalk up the treatment of Thorin's company by Thranduil to evolution of JRRTs view of his Elves in general... but also to cultural difference and specific circumstance. We really have no chance to see such treatement in LotR, but IMO Lothlorien isn't far from it.

PS: Do find it a little funny that they let Gollum out for fresh air. But not the dwarves?

 

[Starbrow]

So did Gloin at the Council of Elrond.

 

[Confusticated]

His complaint was justified. Anyone know any reason Gollum should have been treated better than the dwarves had been?

PS: I mean other than the (extremely interesting ) reason that Tolkien needed a credible way for Gollum to escape. But especially considering he didn't do anything to make it possible the dwarves had been allowed out at some point. Maybe one could justify it by saying the dwarves never desired to go out, being used living in caves, or maybe they would even refuse such a small scrap out of stubborness and Gloin was over-reacting in Rivendell - there was no better treatment for Gollum!?

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

It's possible, despite the initially cool relationship between Legolas and Gimli, that Elven attitudes towards dwarves and other foreigners had softened somewhat after the Battle of Five Armies, and especially with Sauron departed from the area and with orc numbers greatly reduced in the North. That is, I don't think they would have treated Thorin and Co. quite as harshly in 3018 as they did in 2941.

Also, Gollum was with the Woodland Elves at Gandalf's behest (having been brought there by Aragorn). Perhaps he counselled them not to treat Gollum too harshly.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...It seems to me that the Elves were unnecessarily cruel towards the dwarves, lighting the fires, and extinguishing them as soon as the dwarves appeared, then capturing them in the dark and jailing them at once. The Elven-king especially seems a cold and cruel person, not at all like the Elves in LOTR. Any ideas as to why Tolkien chose to change the Elves so much when he wrote LOTR ? It can't just be because Hobbit was meant for a younger audience, in many places it is very scary...

From letter #131 of Tokien's letters:

"The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble nor heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting — and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit's development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return..."

And then a footnote:

*"The hostility of (even good) Dwarves and Elves, a motive that often appears, derives from the legends of the First Age; the Mines of Moria, the wars of Dwarves and Orcs (goblins, soldiery of the Dark Lord) refer to the Second Age and early Third."

In the light of the above, perhaps more understanding is shed on these matters. I hate to make my own guesses and speculations (so often off the mark) nor read those of others when such primary sources as Tolkien's own writings are available. And as I remind so often (far too often according to some), the final product is as it is because when all is said and done, that's the way Tolkien wanted it to be — warts and all. "Because he wanted it that way" is the answer to 99% of the "Why is it this way and not some other way" questions I see on this board. And that is not a glib or flip answer. It would be if Tolkien himself had not gone through so much time and agony in GETTING it that way, even though he didn't get even close to working it all out to his final satisfaction.

The published form of The Silmarillion we have today is not as Tolkien wanted it to be. It is as his son Christopher thought it ought to be, after much labor of love. When Sil first came out I was astonished that it wasn't a much larger book. But that's the best CT could do with it. It's a patchwork of what CT thought made the most sense using the parameters that had been set. The rest got put into "Unfinished Tales," "History of Middle-earth," etc.

The differences between The Hobbit and LOTR or between different chapters in The Hobbit and in between different chapters of LOTR are almost irrelevant by comparison.

Lotho

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I hate to make my own guesses and speculations (so often off the mark) nor read those of others when such primary sources as Tolkien's own writings are available. And as I remind so often (far too often according to some), the final product is as it is because when all is said and done, that's the way Tolkien wanted it to be — warts and all. "Because he wanted it that way" is the answer to 99% of the "Why is it this way and not some other way" questions I see on this board. And that is not a glib or flip answer. It would be if Tolkien himself had not gone through so much time and agony in GETTING it that way, even though he didn't get even close to working it all out to his final satisfaction.

I agree, but I think many who do (like myself) indulge in guesswork and speculation would agree with you as well. The more prosaic reasons for the gaps, differences and discontinuities between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings would be obvious, I think, to all but the most star-struck Tolkien enthusiasts. Chief among these is the fact that the books were published twenty years apart--and that's twenty years for Tolkien to develop and modify many of his ideas about his created universe.

I don't think that for many the point of speculation is to "know the mind of Tolkien." I think it's more likely to be the sheer enjoyment that the exercise of speculation itself entails. I think, putting aside the prosaic realities momentarily (as I think one must to a certain degree when one reads for pleasure), the gaps, discontinuities, silences and flaws in a work or across a body of works can be remarkably productive--especially in the case of SF and fantasy--in the sense that they generate discussion, debate, speculation and--most importantly--an imaginative engagement with the work. Of course, it can generate a lot of rubbish as well, but after all, we're only amateurs. As long as we recognise that we're only speculating--that we're not providing final solutions--there is nothing wrong with speculation.

And sometimes it happens that a seemingly purely-speculative thread can produce a definitive answer from someone more familiar with Tolkien's works (especially the HoME) than most--so it's useful in that sense as well.

By the way, it's great to have you back

 

[Confusticated]

Yeah Lotho has not only said these things before but has heard similar answers before too, yet he keeps at it.

Not everyone takes a cold external approach to the legendarium, and such approach is in no way superior to engaging in wild imaginative theories or putting together information from the HoME to come up with some possabilities.

For an author who did so well in making his world credible, I can't help but think people who take such cold, simple unimaginative, and external view to the history of this imaginary world are missing some point or beauty of it all.

 

[Walter]

Not everyone takes a cold external approach to the legendarium, and such approach is in no way superior to engaging in wild imaginative theories or putting together information from the HoME to come up with some possabilities.

For an author who did so well in making his world credible, I can't help but think people who take such cold, simple unimaginative, and external view to the history of this imaginary world are missing some point or beauty of it all.

To each his own, I'd say

While some people gain pleasure from Tolkien's imaginary world through engaging in wild imaginative theories or putting together information from the HoME to come up with some possibilities, others take delight in studying the author and his epos as well as studying history and passed on myths and by comparing Tolkien's invented mythology with those "facts" are looking for parallels and hence catch a glimpse of the authors mind at work.

Is such an approach really cold and unimaginative? And are we who prefer this approach really missing some point or beauty of it all? How would one know?

Can you really tell which one is the "superior" approach, Nóm? I, for one, cannot!

 

[Confusticated]

As far as I am concerned no approach is superior.

I only voice my opinion because Lotho voiced his first. In fact I wasn't even speaking of an external view that looks for paralles between Tolkien's mythology and other ones, but the simple view of "it is like that because it is how Tolkien wrote it", well obvously that is an answer, but is there nothing mroe, be it internal or external? But that was not to say all external views are unimainigate or simple.

Yes, to each his own, but I have to defend when I hear someone contsantly saying "Because Tolkien made it that way is the answer in 99 percent of cases". To me it is insulting to internal views.

Are views like Walter's that compare JRRT's to other myths unimaginative? I don't know, but can you say I am mistaken in that Lotho's view is simple and unimaginative?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

... the books were published twenty years apart--and that's twenty years for Tolkien to develop and modify many of his ideas about his created universe.

...the gaps, discontinuities, silences and flaws in a work or across a body of works can be remarkably productive...Of course, it can generate a lot of rubbish as well, but after all, we're only amateurs. As long as we recognise that we're only speculating--that we're not providing final solutions--there is nothing wrong with speculation.

And sometimes it happens that a seemingly purely-speculative thread can produce a definitive answer from someone more familiar with Tolkien's works (especially the HoME) than most--so it's useful in that sense as well.

And when that rarity occurs (possibly tied to the return of Halley's Comet) it is a delight indeed!

By the way, it's great to have you back

Thank you! I'm not sure if I'm "back" yet — a member of our extended family has terminal cancer, and it's been exceptionally difficult — Mother's Day was especially poignant. But coming back here as an escape from the relentlessness of real-world demands gives definite albeit temporary relief!

(By the way, your new avatar: you bear a striking resemblance to a character in "Seinfeld!")

And congrats to you for breaking through the 100-mark in your posts!

But let's play the game a bit: here's an intriguing nugget I found in Richard Foster's "Guide to Middle-earth:"

Gollum’s real name was Tahald, a northern Mannish name meaning “burrowing, worming in”: the Anglicized Mannish equivalent was Sméagol.

Anyone know the source of this? I found nothing about it in Tolkien's letters, and it isn't listed in the Sil's index. I don't have (yet) a copy of HoME. The Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/) gives nothing about it. So where does Tolkien talk about this? Not only that (and watch out now, here comes my very own speculative question), why would a variety of Hobbit have a Mannish name given to him in the first place, and not a Hobbitish name?

And a word to you, Nôm, about your quote:

Lotho has not only said these things before but has heard similar answers before too, yet he keeps at it.

Not everyone takes a cold external approach to the legendarium, and such approach is in no way superior to engaging in wild imaginative theories or putting together information from the HoME to come up with some possibilities.

And of course Nôm, you have the freedom to ignore anything I post.

But to give you a serious answer: I would rather hear what Tolkien has to say about his own works than someone else's speculation — unless, as Arthur Vandalay argues, there is someone else with a lot of solid deep knowledge of Tolkien who is making the speculation — in which case it is not mere speculation, but informed speculation, which is a far different thing, and has a very legitimate claim on my time. I have no wish to give time to speculation based on nothing but cursory guesses. I am being neither cold nor external (whatever that means). I am making a preference.

Perhaps I can make myself even clearer: When it comes to music for instance, I would rather have the composer's writings about his own works, or that of someone who has made a deep study of it via listening and score analysis, rather than the off-the-cuff opinions of a cursory, surface or amateur listener trying to make an eager impression on someone, or, even the very enthusiastic listener. Everyone is entitled to have and give their opinion. That doesn't mean everyone's opinion is equally worth paying attention to (including mine). So perhaps now Nôm, you will understand why it is, that I consider your criticism of my approach as being simple and unimaginative itself simple and unimaginative. I hope we can end this here and go on, hopefully as friends, or at least as non-combatants!

(And by the way, I think your avatar is exceptionally beautiful!)

And Walter, thanks for this:

While some people gain pleasure from Tolkien's imaginary world through engaging in wild imaginative theories or putting together information from the HoME to come up with some possibilities, others take delight in studying the author and his epos as well as studying history and passed on myths and by comparing Tolkien's invented mythology with those "facts" are looking for parallels and hence catch a glimpse of the authors mind at work.

Is such an approach really cold and unimaginative? And are we who prefer this approach really missing some point or beauty of it all? How would one know?

Can you really tell which one is the "superior" approach, Nóm? I, for one, cannot!

which so beautifully shows both sides of the issue. I feel defended where I was taken to task a bit unjustly and really without warrant. Thanks again.

Lotho

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

But let's play the game a bit: here's an intriguing nugget I found in Richard Foster's "Guide to Middle-earth:"

(Robert Foster).

Gollum’s real name was Trahald, a northern Mannish name meaning “burrowing, worming in”: the Anglicized Mannish equivalent was Sméagol.

Anyone know the source of this? I found nothing about it in Tolkien's letters, and it isn't listed in the Sil's index. I don't have (yet) a copy of HoME. The Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/) gives nothing about it. So where does Tolkien talk about this?

In Appendix F of LOTR, under the heading: "On Translation."

Not only that (and watch out now, here comes my very own speculative question), why would a variety of Hobbit have a Mannish name given to him in the first place, and not a Hobbitish name?

Well, in the "Prologue" chapter of Fellowship of the Ring, Hobbits are said to have abandoned the languages they had previously spoken in the early days of the Shire--adopting the Common Tongue. In Appendix F, under the heading "Of Hobbits", they are said to have always adopted the languages of the Men among whom or near whom they lived. When the Hobbits dwelt in the vale of the upper Anduin, they would have spoken the tongue of the Northmen who also lived in the region.

Now, we know that there is a period of about 450 years between when the Hobbits of all three strains cross the Misty Mountains into Eriador, and when the Fallohides and Harfoots settle in the Shire. About 200 years after the crossing, with the rise of Angmar in the North, some of the Stoors who had settled in the Angle crossed back over the mountains and settled in the Gladden Fields. These Stoors--Gollum's people--would have spoken a language of the Northmen; perhaps it was closely related to the dialect (did the Northmen have "dialects"?) spoken by the Eotheod who at one time dwelt between the Gladden Fields and the Carrock.