🦅Eagles and ⛏️Dwarves

[Barliman Butterbur]

Hmmm, are you sure about how JRRT viewed the eagles, Nenya?

By the time The Hobbit was written in 1937, JRRT already had pretty extensive writings on the overall mythology. There was even a fairly complete version of The Silmarillion written in 1930. LOTR originated as a sequal to The Hobbit but the mythology, including the special relationship of the eagles to Manwe, existed in JRRT's mind at the time he wrote The Hobbit, I think.

The interesting thing about the use of the Eagles, both in The Hobbit and in LOTR, is that Tolkien uses them as a classic deus ex machina, something rarely seen in modern literature:

Deus ex Machina

"In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.

"Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) [but not in Tolkien's case] plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina."

I find it fascinating that Tolkien, time after time, holds the Eagles "in reserve" to use as the "cavalry:" the deciding factor, the tipping of the scales or final resolution to great battles and rescues (and to announce from the skies over Minas Tirith the end of Sauron) — yet the fact that he uses this ancient device in a modern work is virtually never mentioned in any discussions of Tolkien that I have yet seen. (You can learn more than you ever wanted to know about it at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=deus+ex+machina.)

Barley

 

[baragund]

You're right Barliman. The deus ex machina is a clumsy device. When it is used, people tend to stop "believing" in the story because such an implausible element has been introduced. One sign of a great story is when the author can convince his audience that whatever he is writing about could happen and the deus ex machina tends to destroy that plausibility.

It is remarkable that JRRT could pull it off repeatedly in his writings and somehow avoid losing his audience.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...It is remarkable that JRRT could pull it off repeatedly in his writings and somehow avoid losing his audience.

Sometimes I wonder if Tolkien didn't borrow the basic story arc and structure of the Hobbit and expand it mightily for use in LOTR. In both books, the protagonists seem to follow the same road, right out of Bag End, "ever on and on," encountering virtually the same or similar enemies and challenges (with major exeptions of course), i.e.:

The use of the Eagles in both books as deus ex machina
Bilbo's battles with the spiders/Frodo's battle with Shelob
The Battle of Five Armies/The Battle at Helm's Deep
Bilbo's troubles re-acquiring Bag End/The Scouring of the Shire

This notion first came to me when thinking about the use of the Eagles in both stories. Then I began to notice other similarities as outlined above. If I didn't know that The Hobbit had been written first, I'd almost be tempted to say that it was a miniature LOTR.

I've never really sat down with the books and done a dramatic structural analysis and comparison, but after 40 years of reading them both, that's the feeling I have.

Barley

 

[baragund]

Interesting theory! On an even more fundamental level, both stories are an Odyssey-like quest, where most of the story is taken up by the journey that is needed to reach the given destination. The Hobbit is simplified, compared to LOTR, and is more light-hearted, being geared to children (finding treasure vs. saving the free world). But the basic structure of the two are very similar when you think about it.

This is a pretty significant topic and I'm afraid it may get lost to the membership being buried here in a discussion about 'eagles and dwarves'. You may want to move your post into one of the main discussion threads so some of the 'big guns' of the forum can weigh in on the issue.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...You may want to move your post into one of the main discussion threads so some of the 'big guns' of the forum can weigh in on the issue.

Nah — that's okay — I was just musing!

Barley

"Those who write clearly have readers, those who write obscurely have commentators." —Albert Camus 71b

 

[Ronaldinho]

I don't think the eagles have a particular grudge against the dwarves. they were just being cautious.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...why doesn't the ring bearer just fly to mount doom on the Eagles.

You mean immediately after the Council at Rivendell? That would have been the ultimate solution, eh? Why didn't Elrond or Gandalf think of that? (Wouldn't have left much of a story though!)

Barley

 

[Nenya Evenstar]

I was "dibbling" around in The Letters the other day and found this. I thought it suitable:

The the first real story of this imaginary world almost fully formed as it now appears was written in prose during sick-leave at the end of 1916: The Fall of Gondolin, which I had the cheek to read to the Exeter College Essay Club in 1918 . . . .

I went on after return; but when I attempted to get any of this stuff published I was not successful. The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; and in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', and as I had not learned sense then, and my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the sillinesses of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had had served to me, as Chaucer may catch a minstrel tag. I deeply regret them. So do intelligent children.

All I remember about the start of The Hobbit is sitting correcting School Certificate papers in the everlasting weariness of that annual task force on impecunious academics with children. On a blank leaf I scrawled: 'In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.' I did not and do not know why. I did nothing about it for a long time. . . .

Since The Hobbit was a success, a sequel was called for; and the remote Elvish Legends were turned down. A publisher's reader said they were too full of the kind of Celtic beauty that maddened Anglo-Saxons in a large dose. . . .

All the same, I was not prepared to write a 'sequel', in the sense of another children's story. I had been thinking about 'Fairy Stories' and their relation to children . . . . As I had expressed the veiw that the connexion in the modern mind between children and 'fairy stories' is false a accidental, and spoils the stories in themselves and for children, I wanted to try and write one that was not addressed to children at all (as such); also I wanted a large canvas.

I lot of labour was naturally involved, since I had to make a linkage with The Hobbit; but still more with the background mythology. That had to be re- written as well.

 

[baragund]

Hi Nenya!! Great to hear from you again!

The letter you reference sure sounds like JRRT did not intend The Hobbit to be part of his overall mythology. But why are there glimpses throughout The Hobbit to that larger world? Why are there references to Gondolin, Orcrist, Glamdring, orcs, high elves and the like? Could it be that JRRT did not mention any of those things in the first edition of The Hobbit? The second edition was published after LOTR came out (I think) or at least while he was writing it, so he could have enriched the original story with these references to his larger world.

 

[Nenya Evenstar]

You know, I'm not quite sure! Either that or Tolkien had spent so much time thinking about his "Fairy Stories" that when he began to write The Hobbit he unconciously added parts of them to the story.

 

[Eledhwen]

What a lot of discussion!

1. Dwarves were a bit axe-happy around trees, and may have downed a few eiries. They also inhabited rocky places, which would also invade eagle space, so maybe the eagles weren't too happy with them.

2. When Tolkien wrote that famous line 'in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit', it seems to me that the word just came out, a kind of subconscious amalgam of 'hole' and 'rabbit', maybe, and Tolkien liked it. I can just imagine hobbits taking form as a species or race in his mind until he just had to write about them (and there were some handy children to read said story). His mind was also full of the Silmarillion, ever under development, that his hobbit Bilbo just couldn't help stumbling across it in his travels, and Tolkien discovered that Hobbiton was actually in Middle-earth too. Some characters were of the family trees already written into the Silmarillion. Others, eg: Gandalf, Thranduil, Theoden, Gollum and the hobbits, were new inventions. He did not recognise his own genius, however, and clamours for a sequel to the book meant that hobbits were to become engaged with more of Middle-earth and become inextricably entwined with the existing mythology, the everyday folk in a high setting.

3. Deus ex Machina: Tolkien, in his comments on Zimmerman's attempt at a storyline for Lord of the Rings, comments on Z's tendency to send the eagles to the rescue far too often. Tolkien admits that the device makes the story improbable, and should therefore be used extremely sparingly.

4. I do not think the eagles in the Hobbit are much different from the ones in Lord of the Rings. Tolkien may have got their lineage sorted out by the time the sequel was written, but they are the same creatures, watching, waiting, and turning up in the nick of time. In both stories they speak, and are spoken to with deference, and are considerably larger than any eagle seen nowadays.

There, I think that brings me up to date with the discussion. Have I missed anything? Oh yes, I thoroughly disapprove of moving this thread to somewhere where more scholarly debators will find it. Are they too proud to look in "The Hobbit" subforum, where a childrens book is discussed? Then let them miss out, I say.

 

[baragund]

I just finished reading the 1930 Silmarillion that is in The Shaping of Middle-Earth, Vol. 4 of the History of Middle Earth. I found a couple more potential linkages between JRRT’s mythology and The Hobbit, which was published in 1937:

1. The race of Eagles: In the 1930 Silmarillion, the Eagles were folk of Manwe and they had basically the same “supernatural” abilities that they had in The Hobbit, The LOTR and the version of the Silmarillion that was published in 1977. They were large enough and powerful enough to carry a Man, they could talk, they had their own independent society complete with a ruler (Thorndor was the name of the king of the Eagles in the 1930 Silmarillion), and there was the same pattern of generally refraining from getting involved with the day-to-day conflicts of the “Outer Lands” (JRRT’s earlier term for Middle-Earth) unless there was a dire need. In the 1930 Silmarillion, for example, there were accounts of how Thorndor bore away Fingolfin’s body after his tragic duel with Morgoth, and how the eagles interceded in the flight of the remnants of the people of Gondolin after the sack of that city. Compare these descriptions of Eagles in the 1930 Silmarillion to how they are described in The Hobbit and it’s hard to think how JRRT could not have thought of them as the same race.

2. In the 1930 Silmarillion, there was “The Last Battle” (JRRT’s earlier term for the War of Wrath) where we first see the winged dragons. Like the published Silmarillion, the sons of the Valar, with the aid of Earendil and the Eagles, destroyed these dragons. What is interesting is the 1930 edition specifies that two of the winged dragons escaped. It would be reasonable to think JRRT had one of those winged dragons in mind when he made up the character Smaug. I wonder what happened to the other dragon because I can’t recall any other accounts of dragons in the 2nd or 3rd Ages. Maybe he’s still out there, lying on top of the gold reserve in Fort Knox!

It’s hard to refute the letter that Nenya posted earlier but with all this circumstantial evidence, it sure is hard for me to see how JRRT could have originally made up everything going on in The Hobbit without intending for it to fit into his larger mythology.

And welcome to the discussion, Eledhwen! It’s great to hear some other perspectives.

 

[Eledhwen]

What is interesting is the 1930 edition specifies that two of the winged dragons escaped. It would be reasonable to think JRRT had one of those winged dragons in mind when he made up the character Smaug. I wonder what happened to the other dragon because I can’t recall any other accounts of dragons in the 2nd or 3rd Ages. Maybe he’s still out there, lying on top of the gold reserve in Fort Knox!

You just reminded me that I want to check the Bodleian Library in the hope of finding the notes on an Essay JRRT delivered at the Oxford Museum of Natural History, on dragons. It's a subject that really fascinates me, and I wouldn't be surprised if Smaug's co-escapee turned up, as England has a rich history of dragonlore, mostly forgotten!

 

[HLGStrider]

Is it possible that it ended up in Mordor and that's what was used to breed mockeries of the great Eagles?

The Nazgul steeds, in other words.

 

[baragund]

There's an interesting thought, Elgee I've always wondered where the Nazgul's winged steeds came from. But wouldn't we have seen "Mommy" (or "Daddy") during the War of the Ring?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

There's an interesting thought, Elgee I've always wondered where the Nazgul's winged steeds came from. But wouldn't we have seen "Mommy" (or "Daddy") during the War of the Ring?

Here's the only thing I could find from deep in the bowels of a long letter (#211) from the Carpenter collection:

Tolkien:

"I did not intend the steed of the Witch-King to be what is now called a 'pterodactyl', and often is drawn (with rather less shadowy evidence than lies behind many monsters of the new and fascinating semi-scientific mythology of the 'Prehistoric'). But obviously it is pterodactylic and owes much to the new mythology, and its description even provides a sort of way in which it could be a last survivor of older geological eras."

As far as I have been able to find, Tolkien offers nothing whatever on the origins of these monsters.

Barley

 

[Gildor]

The lord of the Eagles also owed a debt to Gandalf for healing him of an arrow-wound. Saving him from the burning tree would have evened the score, and the Eagles seemed to be proud creatures and uninclined to bear strangers as burdens in a hostile land. Likewise, it seems unsure that they would have agreed to whisk the Ringbearer away to Mount Doom even if they were asked, for the journey would still have been a very dangerous one and perhaps even more foolish than walking. Even a solitary Eagle winging toward Mordor might not have escaped Sauron's notice, and it might have served only to return the Ring to Sauron's hand.

 

[HLGStrider]

There's an interesting thought, Elgee I've always wondered where the Nazgul's winged steeds came from. But wouldn't we have seen "Mommy" (or "Daddy") during the War of the Ring?

Nah, because after they hatched the babies all turned on mommy and nibbled her to death!

Just like a dozen, starving, half-crazed weasles!

1. Dwarves were a bit axe-happy around trees, and may have downed a few eiries. They also inhabited rocky places, which would also invade eagle space, so maybe the eagles weren't too happy with them.

You know, I always thought of all the eyries being rocks. I just don't see a tree capable of holding a BIG eagle nest. If you look at how much our regular eagle nests weigh, it would take quite a tree to hold the nest of the eagles of Tolkien.

 

[baragund]

That's right, Elgee. I don't think even Mallorn trees could hold up the eyrie of Tolkien's Eagles. I remember reading somewhere that these Eagles had wingspans of anywhere between 30 feet and 30 fathoms which is 6 feet. It would have to be a mighty big tree to hold up something that is approaching the size of a Boeing 737!

 

[Flame of Udûn]

I read something interesting in The Treason of Isengard a few days ago:

The Black Riders now have taken the form of demonic eagles and fly before host, or [?take eagle-like] vulture birds as steeds.
Chapter XI The Story Foreseen from Moria