Still on the Quest

That's another one!

I conclude, reluctantly, that Peter Jackson could have put shoes on those poor bedraggled hobbits when they were wading through the snows -- even if they were just wool socks with leather soles sewn onto the bottoms! (Btw, I ran across a reference in the Letters that Tolkien intended to have Bilbo in boots after Rivendell to the Lonely mountain and forgot to put it in...)

From:

I always rather thought Tom was supposed to be one of the Big People. By the time Sam sings his troll-song, he has seen quite a few of those. Hobbit-hose may be more like leg-warmers.

As to your second set of questions, I'm stumped too, but I think that the answer to the third is that entirely too many fen think they couldn't love a fat hobbit, even if it was Frodo, so they refuse to be realistic.

From:

rubynye.livejournal.com

Hrmn. That last may be so for many fen and really does seem to be so for some, but in my case it's three things:

1) It's a useful visual to differentiate him. Contrasts are fun, after all.
2) It lets one use that cute little fanon story about hobbitchildren mistaking him for an elf
3) I've got a bad case of Elijah Wood on the brain.

From:

LoL! Yes it is hard to try to think of different visuals now, isn't it!

From:

Tisn't realistic in any event, since I can't get my hands on any hobbit, fat or thin, and it certainly didn't stop me from appreciating Mr. Astin's performace. It's just those big blue eyes...

Tom could be one of the big people, certainly, but if Sam's making up a song extemporarily you'd think it would be even more likely to be about familiar things, yes? Well, except for the Troll! Although maybe he was thinking of Tom Bombadil...

From:

lame-pegasus.livejournal.com

It's just those big blue eyes...

Something wrong with those eyes? Hm? Hm???

*clenches her fists*

Sorry...

From:

Nothing, nothing! *backs away hastily, making conciliatory gestures* They're very pretty blue eyes. Very nice indeed...

*grin*

From:

lame-pegasus.livejournal.com

Ahem. Sorry again. Seems as if those eyes are my soft spot.

From:

LoL!

No need to apologize! I suspect you're not the only one.

(and besides, if you're all distracted by the pretty blue eyes that means I get Sam all to myself, right?)

From:

lame-pegasus.livejournal.com

He's all yours, dear.

From:

rubynye.livejournal.com

Hey!

*offers to arm-wrestle you over Sam*

From:

frodobaggins-88.livejournal.com

Doesn't Frodo have an unnormal aversion to eating though? I thought it said somewhere that he didn't eat as much as everyone else. I don't know. Maybe I read it in a fic and got it stuck in my mind. Who knows? Maybe it just said he was more slender?

From:

In the book he starts out a little more portly and comments about losing weight during the trip to Rivendell with Strider. And it's Gandalf who described him as being "a stout little fellow with red cheeks" "taller than some and fairer than most, and he has a cleft in his chin; perky chap with a bright eye." Gandalf said that to Barliman Butterbeer, describing Frodo as he was just prior to setting out. I think Sam fusses at him about eating on the journey, and I know he was a lot thinner by the time he woke up in Rivendell, but whether or not two months of rest restored some of the weight is not made clear.

Sam, on the other hand, is described as "sturdy" and "brown" (probably from the sun), and his eyes are definitely brown.

To be honest, I'm not in the least offended by this omission in most fic, I just think it's funny.

From:

Frodo's anorexia is a fanon entirely. I think it is based partly on Elijah Wood's computer-modified appearance and partly on the fact that most of us have been raised to find skinny feminine persons sexy.

Tolkien does not describe his characters physically except for a few symbolic features (e.g. tall and grey-eyed, meaning Numerorian) because he wants us to know them from within.

His one physical description of Frodo is Gandalf's to Barliman Butterbur: "A stout little fellow with red cheeks. That won't help you much, it goes for most hobbits, Barley. But this one is taller than some and fairer than most, and has a cleft in his chin; perky chap with a bright eye." This description rouses Sam's indignation but it isn't for Sam; it is meant to let a big person -- one of us -- recognize a particular hobbit.

On the quest, after months with little to eat, Sam thinks in his Frodo-centered way that Frodo has become too thin for a hobbit. A third party would have said the same of Sam, as both are subsisting on the same spare rations. When they are able to get a good meal on the quest, or even an adequate meal such as Faramir provides and which seems like a feast compared to what they've been living on, both hobbits fall seriously to eating in the manner of all hobbits.

In the later stages of the quest, while Frodo is entirely absorbed in fighting off the attacks of the Ring, Sam has make sure Frodo eats. This isn't anorexia on Frodo's part. He is too absorbed by the Ring and by trying to figure out a course to Mount Doom to think of anything else. On the other hand, Frodo might feel more hunger than he shows because he doesn't want Sam to give him all their small remaining stock of food and starve himself.

There is no record in the post-quest chapters that Frodo was in any way unwilling to eat. These chapters are less intimate and more publicly-focussed than the preceding few, however they do take note of Frodo's regularly-scheduled wounding anniversaries, his fear of being near Weathertop, etc. Since those signs of enduring damage are noted, so ought to be any others.

Back in the Shire, Sam's "vague anxiety" on Frodo's behalf concerns only his withdrawal from the life of the Shire. Nothing is noted about anorexia, nightmares, or any other of the dramatic manifestations so dear to the hearts of fanfic writers. If a hobbit didn't eat, any other hobbit would very likely be seriously alarmed, not vaguely anxious.

Based on what Tolkien wrote, Frodo has, in normal times, as healthy an appetite and rotund a shape as Bilbo before him or any other member of his species.

From:

Oh I don't think even the fanfic has him anorexic, at least not very often. Just slender enough to be noticeable.

I had a vague notion of a reference in Mordor somewhere, though, of Frodo forgetting to eat. But skimming through just now it strikes me how much Frodo is taking care of Sam -- making sure he eats and drinks before they leave the tower of Cirith Ungol, and taking his hand instead of the other way around when Sam tells him about Shelob and his other adventures.

*happy sigh*

From:

Doublechecking -- Frodo probably has a strong Fallohidish strain, and the Fallohides were "taller and slimmer" as well as fairer of skin and hair than most hobbits. Sam's description as "brown" puts him among the Harfoots. (And Gollum, we know is a Stoor.)

From:

frodobaggins-88.livejournal.com

Hmm. You all know the books better than me, but then again I'm only to Cirith Ungol in TTT. Got a ways to go. And, eykar, I wasn't meaning anorexic, just to let you know. Rabidsamfan said what I meant. I think that whole skinny female stuff is way too much emphasized in Hollywood. I know I wouldn't want to be that skinny. I have no problem with a chunkier Frodo because I know how Hobbits are supposed to be.

From:

caraloup.livejournal.com

If hobbits don't wear shoes or boots (except in rare instances) then why on earth does Sam sing about big Boots in the Troll Song

That's a very good question! The song as a whole is so peculiar, and totally contradicts the perception of Sam as your good-natured, optimistic next-door gardener. Of course there could be all kinds of pragmatic explanations for the boots in the song (seeing that some foot-protection is definitely required when kicking a troll ;), but why and how would Sam come up with such a pretty morbid scenario in the first place? (Uh, no, I can't answer that either. :)

And when Sam puts the Ring on and chases after the Orcs when they take Frodo, when does he take it off again? How many minutes/hours does Sam wear that thing, actually, and where was Gollum all that long time?

Gollum was off sneaking, I suppose... Sam has the Ring on when he faints in front of the Undergate, but when he regains consciousness, he's no longer wearing it. Then he puts it on once more as he climbs the pass, but he takes it off again as he takes his first step into Mordor.

As for the time that passes, there are some very peculiar time lapses throughout the Cirith Ungol events, but even so, Sam carried the Ring from March 13th (sometime before dusk) to the late evening hours of the 14th, or past-midnight hours of the 15th. That would make it something in between 28 hours at least, and 38 at most.

Why is it that I've never run across even one fic so far where Frodo starts out on the Quest properly hobbit-shaped, i.e. tubby in the tummy?

There are fics like that, you know. :) They're just pretty rare. So, since you didn't really want this question answered, may I recommend that you take a look at one wonderful story that also features Frodo's nicely rounded hobbit belly? Go here:

http://lightindarkplaces.luminousbeings.net/WTHK.htm

(This is Frayach's "What The Heart Knows", actually the second story in her "Let Evening Come" series, but it can be read on its own. I think you'd enjoy it. :)

From:

The story doesn't strike me as entirely peculiar in its tone or topic -- I tell folktales and some of the authentic ones are pretty gruesome. Since the grave robbing is really just a setup for the joke, I put it into the "rough humor" category.

I wonder sometimes if the Ring didn't deliberately fall off Sam's finger while he was unconscious and might be found by any passing orc...

And thanks for the fic rec! I shall check it out when my day gets a little calmer!

From:

>why and how would Sam come up with such a pretty morbid scenario in the first place? (Uh, no, I can't answer that either. :)

After being chased by Nazgul, surviving attacks by trees in the Old Forest and by barrow-wights, and seeing Frodo wounded by a magic weapon -- not to mention witnessing cruelty to an animal, probably for the first time in his life, at Bree -- how would Sam not have death on the brain?

From:

caraloup.livejournal.com

how would Sam not have death on the brain?

Yes, those recent experiences definitely create a context for the song, though I don't think Sam improvised it on the spot. Not that he isn't capable of it, but it has the ring of something that he put together while he was still in the Shire and pondering Bilbo's tales.

rabidsamfan: I guess I wouldn't call it 'rough humor' so much as 'black humor.' Can you imagine other hobbits making up songs quite like that?

From:

The version that he had in his head when he left the Shire may have been much lighter in tone.

From:

Yes, actually. Sam's coming from a very rural kind of society -- births, deaths, and other things are probably less taboo as subjects than they are in other times and places. In traditional folklore there are also a number of stories about graves being robbed for bones for various reasons. Part of this of course arises from the simple problem of space. We know nothing of hobbit burial customs, but Tolkien was coming from a long established country which had been using the same churchyards for centuries. In digging new graves, old ones would certainly be discovered now and then, and skeletons would be a not entirely unfamiliar sight. And of course hungry hobbits would know the various ways that additional calories might be extracted from the bones of more prosaic origin, like chicken soup.

Trolls aren't exactly polite society anyway, and do try to eat other humanoids -- Sam knows Bilbo's story -- and a kick in the rear is a typical humorous method of revenge. Yeah, I could see Sam telling it.

From:

caraloup.livejournal.com

We know nothing of hobbit burial customs, but Tolkien was coming from a long established country which had been using the same churchyards for centuries. In digging new graves, old ones would certainly be discovered now and then, and skeletons would be a not entirely unfamiliar sight.

Not for Tolkien, perhaps, but since hobbits don't have to confine themselves to churchyards of limited space, I doubt that it would be such a usual occurrence. Unless their customs are very different from those of our cultures, I'd assume that burying the dead also means to leave their remains undisturbed, if it can be helped.

And of course hungry hobbits would know the various ways that additional calories might be extracted from the bones of more prosaic origin, like chicken soup.

LOL! Well, I certainly don't think that hobbits share our contemporary taboos, but would *that* particular association impose itself? I doubt it. ;)

Yeah, I could see Sam telling it.

Well, of course. :) I just wonder how queer it might seem to other hobbits under different circumstances (before the quest, that is). There are elements to it that connect easily to hobbit attitudes, and others that don't.

From:

Given the natural restriction I think most of us would assume against growing crops on graves and the general food needs of hobbits, whether the burial grounds were churchyards or not I'd expect them to be of limited size -- particularly if they are near enough to villages for the kind of small visits relations might make to the grave of a beloved elder. The English had plenty of woodland if they'd been inclined to place graves higgledy piggledy across the countryside too.

Authentic folklore tends to include a lot of details more genteel literature does not -- well, except for Chaucer, who still put the farts and crudities into the voices of the lower classes...

From:

elycia.livejournal.com

Re Sam and the Ring: I don't have TTT handy, but I was under the impression that he had to take the thing off if he wanted to see properly; while it had the benefit of improved hearing (as well as invisibility), it distorted vision and time-perception enough to make it a nuisance. I'll have to go look it up, now that you've piqued my curiosity.

From:

That was the second time Sam put it on. If he'd really been stuck as Ringbearer he'd have had to find a way to keep himself from doing that again...

From:

teasel.livejournal.com

Another fic that sticks to canon about hobbit weight -- Merripestin's The Last Shreds of Autumn. It's set in Rivendell and Frodo has by this time been ill and lost weight, but one of the things Frodo appreciates about Sam is his hobbit, erm, solidity, and Frodo makes quite clear that by hobbit standards Sam looks darn good. Strong Adult slash, by the way, and a lovely fic, though the ending can be heartbreaking.

From:

Woohoo! More reading to do!

Thanks!

From:

gentlehobbit.livejournal.com

*chuckle* I have had planned, for quite a while now, references to Frodo's rather hobbity girth in a fic I'm working on now. I too have wondered why he has always been described as "thin as a willow-wand" (to quote Frodo himself) in fanfic.

So I am delighted at your queries!

From:

Go for it!

From:

cpsings4him.livejournal.com

Very interesting discussion! I don't know about the Hobbit Boots or the Ring or any of that other stuff, but did have one comment about Frodo's figure. Does it count that I described various parts of him as "plump, pudgy and chubby" in my "The Early Adventures of Fwo and Unga Bee"? Granted, that was WAY pre-quest...but perhaps that one counts?

:)

From:

Well, yes, that does count I suppose. I stand corrected. *bows*

From:

According to the prologue of FoTR hobbits "seldom wore shoes. . . .the only craft little practiced among them was shoe-making." The same prologue states that the hobbits of the Marish "were rather large and heavy legged and they wore dwarf-boots in muddy weather." Therefore neither shoes nor boots were unknown, only uncommon.

Tolkien originally wrote the Troll Song entirely unrelated LoTR. According to The History of Middle Earth, Vol VI , The Return of the Shadow, Chapter 8, Arrival at Bree, it was originally meant to be sung at the inn at Bree by Bingo (whose place in later drafts was taken by Frodo.) It moved around the text a couple of times before settling down to being sung by Sam at Trollshaw.

From:

Yes, yes, I know all that. That's why I mentioned "rare instances" in the question. But it still doesn't ezplain the "woolen hose", because wearing socks without shoes is very hard on the socks, unless they are bedsocks. (Or leg warmers, I suppose.) And it doesn't solve the origin of the Troll Song within the context of the story to know that it was originally assigned to Bingo, who is, after all, another hobbit, and neither he nor Sam live in the Eastfarthing.

Authorial inattention is an explanation, of course -- Tolkien may have added the comment about the boots in the Prologue because he was too enamored of the troll song to give it up. It was perhaps not inattention, as letter 27 discusses the illustrations for The Hobbit and mentions booting and unbooting Bilbo on his two visits to Rivendell, so much as a desire to emphasize the woollyfootedness of hobbits (same letter.)

From:

If Bilbo is supposed to have worn boots, Sam would have been raised from the cradle knowing what they are and there would be no mystery at all. Connecting boots with trolls would be a no-brainer, since both would be connected with Bilbo. A very young Sam might have even made up the first version of the troll song for the very purpose of gaining Bilbo's attention and approval, before the Gaffer taught him not to put himself forward that way. (Hey, plot bunny!)

From:

Hi! Sorry to barge in, and to leave this very belated comment - I found your journal via a friend (Elwen) and keep reading it primarily for your wonderful drabbles, but I though I might put my tuppence-worth in here.

In England we do not, as a rule, use the word hose to mean tights/stockings/socks - in any case the word has a slightly archaic flavour. In this instance, I imagine it means something more like trousers or leggings, or possibly gaiters. Or indeed it can mean breeches or drawers - early twentieth century Englishmen would certainly think it essential to pack good woollen undergarments for any kind of hiking expedition. So here, at least, I don't think we need to worry about any kind of contradiction; I hope that helps!

From:

Oh, belated comments are just fine -- please feel free to leave any that suit you, as they show up in my e-mail.

It's interesting that you use hose in the sense of trousers (like lederhosen, I wonder?) I've never encountered that usage in English or American books, but I'm pleased to take your word for it. The Encarta came up with "clothes history tight-fitting trousers: a garment formerly worn by men, fitting closely to the legs and attaching to a doublet", but those weren't what we think of as trousers, exactly. Much more like pantyhose. And again, they went to the feet. (also "clothes leg covering: a skintight leg covering such as stockings or socks")

Hosiery is given as "socks and stockings: socks, stockings, pantyhose, and tights, considered collectively".

Cambridge University's dictionary also mentions socks and stockings. I did find one dictionary that defined hose as only going down to the knee, but the next definition was the stocking knees to toes of my experience.

What's the best UK online dictionary, do you think?

From:

Mmm, yes, it must be the same root as in 'lederhosen'. Oddly enough, we do use the term 'hosiery' quite happily (not in everyday conversation, but in eg. shop terminology) to cover the general range of socks/stockings/tights - but hose/pantyhose as tights or stockings would be thought of as very American!

I'm afraid I don't know a good UK online dictionary; the definitive UK dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary - I imagine to use this online one would have to register/pay a hefty fee. I have a physical copy of this (it's like 20 volumes in full!); under hose, it gives (in short): "1. An article of clothing for the leg; sometimes reaching only to the ankle as a legging or gaiter, sometimes also covering the foot like a long stocking. 2. (old use) Sometimes an article of clothing for the legs and loins, = breeches, drawers." And, yes, it's related to the Germanic "hose = trousers".

I am often fascinated (and sometimes amused) by differences between American and British English. For instance, continuing with the clothes theme, an American described as dressed in a vest and pants would presumably be considered well-dressed, but an Englishman would be out and about in his underwear! Conversely, an Englishman wearing a jumper wouldn't cause a raised eyebrow - it's a sweater - but I only recently learned in the US is a kind of pinafore-dress (is that right?). Then besides the actual words there are differences in spelling and grammar. I had known for ages about the obvious things like colour/color and grey/gray, but there are the more subtle things like where letters are doubled or not, eg US 'woolen' v. UK 'woollen'. (Funnily enough, using the spell-checker here on LJ has taught me many of these differences.) And then there are tiny details like the different positionings of punctuation-marks inside or outside of quotations. Little things like these can have the unexpected effect of making a piece of writing appear badly written to someone sensitive to their own country's grammatical rules but unfamiliar with another's (as most of us are, I imagine.) And I know some people debate very earnestly about what 'language' they should use when writing fic for a work originally in British English or vice versa (personally I tend to think people should do what they want without fear of being censured by other people - although I do find it odd when Frodo asks for a cookie, for instance!)

Gosh, I rambled on there longer than I meant to, sorry! And thanks very much for the interesting conversation!

From:

I was taught to double the consonant before adding a suffix if the vowel was short but Microsoft Word is very much in the single consonant category (I have to turn off the spellcheck sometimes!)

"Woolen" is one of those words I'd have to think about, as the vowel sound is not clearly short -- I think I'd definitely write "Woolly", though...

I can get the OED at work (I'm a librarian) if I remember to. I knew about the vest and pants and jumper -- I've been reading British authors for years and watching the shows that got transported across the "pond." When I've been doing a lot of that my grammar starts flipping back and forth, and so does my punctuation! But I agree, people should write fics the way they are most comfortable writing and not worry too much about it. I've seen people Britpick Harry Potter stories and take out words I know perfectly well that Dorothy Sayers used, just because they aren't used to a certain regionalism.

Rambling is fun. Isn't that what LJ is for?

From:

Hee, lots of people I know are librarians! Me, I'm a part-time wannabe-academic, but currently rather impeded by ME/CFS (I think it's called CFIDS in US?).

Mmn, yes, your mention of D.L. Sayers reminds me that there is yet another possible variation to take into account, alongside that of country, region, class etc. - period. Frankly, given all the potential pitfalls, I think one should be very careful in trying to provide a definitive 'Britpicking' or similar service, although of course such have their place and can be extremely useful (eg. I've provided info on the British school and university systems for people who've asked.) It seems to me there is a fine line between careful crafting of a piece of writing, and being so concerned with 'accuracy' as to become horribly stilted.

Your own Sam-voice, and indeed other Tolkien writing, is wonderfully smooth and flowing - in fact I had to check to user-info to see whether you were British or American! Personally, I am glad I've not yet attempted to write anything in an American fandom - I'm sure I should make an awful mess of it!

Isn't language interesting? Thanks again for the conversation, and would you mind of I friended you?

From:

By all means, friend away. And you're right, there's a very real difference between a bit of research for adding verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, and getting so obsessive over the details you can't enjoy the story.

I'm glad you think I write Tolkien well, but I must confess that it's because I am a style sponge. Having a fairly barebones style of my own I find it easy to take on the characteristics of another writer for the sake of a story. I do look fairly carefully at Sam's dialect when I read, but that's because I'm always looking for Sam!

From:

Oh, and p.s., I hope you're enjoying the drabbles!

From: