~Frequently Asked Questions~
The questions & answers are listed below:
A) MIDDLE-EARTH
1) Who was J.R.R. Tolkien?
2) Did the events in The Lord of the Rings take place on another
planet or what?
3) Was the northwest of Middle-earth, where the stories took place,
meant to actually be Europe?
4) Was the Shire meant to be England?
5) Is Middle-earth Medieval?
6) What were the changes made to The Hobbit after The Lord of
the Rings was written, and what motivated them?
B) HOBBITS
1) Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans?
2) Did Hobbits have pointed ears?
3) When was Bilbo and Frodo's Birthday? To what date on our own
calendar does it correspond?
4) Was Gollum a Hobbit?
C) ELVES
1) Did Elves have pointed ears?
D) DWARVES
1) Did Dwarf women have beards?
E) ISTARI (Wizards)
1) Who were the Istari?
2) Of the Five Wizards, only three came into the story. Was
anything known about the other two?
3]) What happened to Radagast?
F) ENEMIES
1) What was the relationship between Orcs and Goblins?
2) What was Gothmog (the lieutenant of Morgul)?
G) MISCELLANEOUS
1) Who or what was Tom Bombadil?
2) What became of the Entwives?
3) Did Elves and Dwarves generally get along?
4) Did Balrogs have wings?
For example, in the Prologue it is stated: "Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed; but the regions in which Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea.". Since no other reference is made to this matter either in the Prologue or in the main narrative, it makes little impression on most readers, but is clear enough once pointed out.
More precisely, the Shire plainly could not *be* England in any literal sense: England is on an island, 'Britain': an island which England shares with Scotland and Wales. Even changes in "the shape of all lands" is insufficient to explain such a discrepancy (especially since even the westernmost part of the Shire was some 200 miles from the Sea). Nevertheless, the Shire was more exactly based on England than any other part of Middle-earth was based on any part of our world: the climate, place-names, flora and fauna, terrain, food, customs, and the inhabitants themselves, were all English. In effect the Shire was an idealized version of the rural England of Tolkien's childhood.
In the original 1937 edition of _The Hobbit_ Gollum was genuinely willing to bet his ring on the riddle game, the deal being that Bilbo would receive a "present" if he won. Gollum in fact was dismayed when he couldn't keep his promise because the ring was missing. He showed Bilbo the way out as an alternative, and they parted courteously.
As the writing of TLotR progressed the nature of the Ring changed. No longer a "convenient magical device", it had become an irresistable power object, and Gollum's behavior now seemed inexplicable, indeed, impossible. In the rough drafts of the "Shadow of the Past" chapter Gandalf was made to perform much squirming in an attempt to make it appear credible, not wholly successfully.
Tolkien resolved the difficulty by re-writing the chapter into its present form, in which Gollum had no intention whatsoever of giving up the Ring but rather would show Bilbo the way out if he lost. Also, Gollum was made far more wretched, as befitted one enslaved and tormented by the Ruling Ring. At the same time, however, Bilbo's claim to the Ring was seriously undercut. Bilbo was then described as having 'made up' the first story in an attempt to make his claim to the Ring legitimate. Using this method Tolkien was able to explain within the story why there were two versions of the chapter in circulation.
1) Were Hobbits a sub-group of Humans?
Yes, beyond question. There were three statements to this effect.
The first, from the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings, is probably less definite because it was
intended to be the editor speaking.
It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten (TLotR).
The Hobbits are, of course, really meant to be a branch of the specifically *human* race (not Elves or Dwarves) -- hence the two kinds can dwell together (as at Bree), and are called just the Big Folk and Little Folk. They are entirely without non-human powers, but are represented as being more in touch with 'nature' (the soil and other living things, plants and animals), and abnormally, for humans, free from ambition or greed of wealth (From Tolkien's letters).
Firstborn, The. Title of the Elves. Translate. ('Firstborn', since the Elves appeared in the world before all other 'speaking peoples', not only Men, but also Dwarves, of independent origin. Hobbits are of course meant to be a special variety of the human race). [Guide, entry for "The Firstborn"]
I picture a fairly human figure, not a kind of 'fairy' rabbit as some of my British reviewers seem to fancy: fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur. Clothing: green velvet breeches; red or yellow waistcoat; brown or green jacket; gold (or brass) buttons; a dark green hood and cloak (belonging to a dwarf). [Letters]
The Annotated Hobbit cites this letter and includes a reasonable illustration based upon it. [Note that Tolkien's use of the word "elvish" here refers to the elfs of popular folklore, who were often pictured with pointed ears. The Elves of Middle-earth (except for the Silvan Elves in The Hobbit) were at the time of this letter known to only a few people.]
[In Appendix D of TLotR Tolkien gives detailed information about long-term inaccuracies in the Shire Reckoning, which they dealt with differently than we do. Based on this, it is possible to conclude that the SR at the time of the story had accumulated either two days or four days of error, depending on how careful the Hobbits were about making long- term corrections, which we aren't told. This result would make the equivalent date either September 14 or September 16, but other consi- derations raise questions about the accuracy of such calculations, so September 12 is probably the most straightforward choice.]
1) Did Elves have pointed ears?
There is no known text in which Tolkien makes an unambiguous
statement about the shape of Elvish ears. Those who argue in favor of
pointed ears generally cite a remark which seems to support that
position found in the "Etymologies" (part of _The Lost Road_). That
document was written in the period immediately before the composition
of LotR, so it is unclear to what extent it should be treated as a
canonical source. Those who argue against pointed ears focus on
Tolkien's statements that Elves and humans were sufficiently similar
that they could be mistaken for each other. There is no consensus on
this issue.
1) Did Dwarf women have beards?
It seems they did. In the note on Dwarf women in Appendix A it
was told:
It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no
more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad
except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb
if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes
and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart.
Since beards were part of the appearance, not the garb, of dwarf-men, we must conclude that dwarf-women did in fact have beards.
1) Who were the Istari (Wizards)?
The Wizards were Maiar (spiritual beings of lower "rank" than the Valar)
sent to Middle-earth by the Valar in human form as Messengers to help in the
struggle against Sauron: the term "incarnate angel" is approximately correct.
Being incarnated limited their power, and intentionally so, because their
mission was to organize the resitance and to inspire the free peoples of Middle-earth to help themselves, not to do the job for them. Their main temptation,
then, was to try to speed up the process by dominating other free wills -- a
principle reason for their mission was to prevent such actions by Sauron.
It was said that there were Five Wizards in the Order, but only three
came into the story:
-- Saruman ('Man of Skill') the White
[Sindarin: Curunir ('Man of Skill'); Quenya: Curumo]
-- Gandalf ('Elf of the wand') the Grey (later the White)
[Sindarin: Mithrandir ('Grey Pilgrim'); Quenya: Olorin]
-- Radagast the Brown [Quenya: Aiwendel]
Gandalf was the only one who remained true to his missison, and in the end succeeded in bringing about Sauron's defeat. He was also the keeper of the Elven Ring Narya, the Red Ring (the Ring of Fire).
Tolkien speaking as himself was only barely more explicit. In a letter he said that he knew "nothing clearly" about the other two: 'I think they went as emissaries to distant regions, East and South, far out of Numenorean range: missionaries to enemy-occupied lands, as it were. What success they had I do not know; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.' (Letters).
Radagast certainly never became evil. The above quote suggests, however, that his mission was not just to relate to wild creatures but also to build bridges between them and Elves and Men. He did, in fact, have his friends the birds gather much information, but since they were reporting to Saruman as the head of the Council that wasn't altogether helpful. On the other hand, it has often been suggested (though there is no direct textual evidence of any kind) that the way Eagles kept showing up at opportune times may have been partially his work.
We know nothing of what happened to Radagast after the end of the Third Age. It seems conceivable, though, given the more ambiguous nature of his failing, that he might have been allowed back to Valinor eventually.
1) What was the relationship between Orcs and Goblins?
They are different names for the same race of creatures. Of the two terms,
'Orc' is the correct one. Although Orcs were referred to as 'Goblins' in The Hobbit, Tolkien later stated that 'Goblin' was the name given by Hobbits to such creatures. In The Lord of the Rings the correct term is used.
1) Who or what was Tom Bombadil?
As to Tom's nature, there are several schools of thought.
a) He was a Maia (the most common notion). The reasoning here is plain: given the Middle-earth cast of characters as we know it, this is the most convenient pigeonhole in which to place him (and Goldberry as well); most of the other individuals in LotR with "mysterious" origins: Gandalf, Sauron, Wizards and Balrogs, did in fact turn out to be Maiar.
b) He was Iluvatar. The only support for this notion is on theological grounds: some have interpreted Goldberry's statement to Frodo (F: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" G: "He is.") as a form of the Christian "I am that am", which really could suggest the Creator. Tolkien rejected this interpretation quite firmly.
c) T.A. Shippey (in _The Road to Middle-earth_) and others have suggested that Tom is a one-of-a-kind type. This notion received indirect support from Tolkien himself: "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)" (Letters). There are scattered references to other entites which seem to fall outside the usual picture.
Whichever of these is correct, Tom's function inside the story was evidently to demonstrate a particular attitude towards control and power. "The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless." (Letters). Tom represented "Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality." (Letters).
What happened to them is not resolved in this book. ... I think that in fact the Entwives had disappeared for good, being destroyed with their gardens in the War of the Last Alliance (Second Age 3429-3441) when Sauron pursued a scorched earth policy and burned their land against the advance of the Allies down the Anduin. They survived only in the 'agriculture' transmitted to Men (and Hobbits). Some, of course, may have fled east, or even have become enslaved: tyrants even in such tales must have an economic and agricultural background to their soldiers and metal-workers. If any survived so, they would indeed be far estranged from the Ents, and any rapprochement would be difficult -- unless experience of industrialized and militarized agriculture had made them a little more anarchic. I hope so. I don't know (Letters).
* The Balrog in Moria had "wings" of some sort, or if you prefer, a
shadow shaped like wings.
* These "wings" were probably not made of flesh and blood, but
rather of some sort of "dark emanation" or "palpable darkness".
* The "wings" could most probably change shape and size at will.
Most agree that the Moria passage in TLotR does not provide convincing evidence for or against wings (for example, while the Balrog does not fly out of the chasm, it may not have had enough room to use it's wings, or it's highest priority may have been the destruction of a rival Maia in it's domain). Most also agree that as Maiar, Balrogs could conceivably be able to fly even if they had no wings. The only direct evidence one way or the other comes from a passage in "The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)" in _Morgoth's Ring_:
'Far beneath the halls of Angband... the Balrogs lurked still.... Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.'
Some believe that this passage clearly describes Balrogs flying (with wings), others do not. The issue as to whether or not Balrogs had wings (or wing-like emanations) and if in either case they were able to fly, continues to be a subject of much debate.
