Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[Morthoron]

Yes, very good point, perceptive, insightful & well worth making - I think you'll find I made it myself in the post that started this tangent off:

No, actually your statement is the antithesis of what I said, but that's okay, because the whole matter seems to disturb you far more than it does me.

However, you're missing the point. Hobbits are primarily working class English folk. Working class English folk do not have 'lunch' - we have dinner. Clever arguments based on derivations of words are all very fine, but are rarely relevant when it comes to how people from various classes actually use language. I am a member of the English working class. I grew up among the English working class, & my whole family without exception were of the English working class, & I can tell you that at mid-day the English working class, certainly up to very recent years, have 'dinner' at mid-day, not 'lunch'. In fact, in Yorkshire we have our 'snap' at dinner time - snap being food & providing the term 'knapsack' which was originally 'snapsack', or food sack.

Yes, I am sure you are the salt of the earth and wave a red flag on May Day, but since Tolkien was not from Yorkshire, it seems evident the word 'lunch' did not manifest such a malevolent reaction in him as from you Northern Brits. In the U.S., 'dinner' has a much more formal connotation than 'lunch' (and in most cases dinner is interchangeable with 'supper'); but again, 'lunch' is used casually in several instances in the books and does not seem to have any profound or aristocratic intent other than a midday meal. *shrugs*

And, if you can tell me how this whole digression is relevant to the thread I'll be happy to continue it. If not, I'm happy to leave it here.

Well, let's see...we went from Elves (and Elvish horses) snorting to the dramatic interpretations of Lunch(eon). I don't see how one is more relevant than the other, and I do believe that you started the whole digression. But I will halt all unseemly and irrelevant discussion and return to contextual matters...
just as soon as someone reminds me what we were originally talking about.

[Aurel]

Though Tolkien did not want others to "continue" his work or write new stories based on his work, I find it interesting that as in LOTR, Bilbo began writing the Red Book, then he gave it to Frodo to continue, and Frodo gave it Sam and so on... that it reflected how Tollien himself began writing the mythology for ME and he passed it on to Christopher to continue. So who does it go to next? Is it not within us all to continue on in our own way? We won't all have the same story to tell, but does that mean that we should't tell it? That's just my thought on the subject.

[davem]

No, actually your statement is the antithesis of what I said, but that's okay, because the whole matter seems to disturb you far more than it does me.

I don't see how it is 'antithetical' when I was merely making the point that nuncheon, or even luncheon was preferable to the modern (English) Middle class term 'lunch'. It doesn't disturb me at all, to be honest. I was merely seeking to clarify my position.
Yes, I am sure you are the salt of the earth and wave a red flag on May Day, but since Tolkien was not from Yorkshire, it seems evident the word 'lunch' did not manifest such a malevolent reaction in him as from you Northern Brits. In the U.S., 'dinner' has a much more formal connotation than 'lunch' (and in most cases dinner is interchangeable with 'supper'); but again, 'lunch' is used casually in several instances in the books and does not seem to have any profound or aristocratic intent other than a midday meal. *shrugs*

Actually, I was not making a political but a social comment - that, being a member of the English working class I am able to comment on word usage among the English working class. Of course, Tolkien was not from Yorkshire (sad though that be for us tykes to admit, & probably a source of trauma to JRRT himself - you'd have to be English to realise how high this county is held in national esteem). He did, however, provide the Foreword to Haigh's 'A New Glossary of the Dialect of the Huddersfield District'. As Janet Brennan Croft comments:

In 1928, J.R.R. Tolkien published a six-page Foreword to A New Glossary of the Dialect of the Huddersfield District, written by Walter Edward Haigh, a long-time resident of that area. This dialect was of great interest to Tolkien as a philologist, since it comes from an area where the speech of the North and of the western Midlands overlap, and bears the linguistic marks of invasions from the Scandinavian countries, the fourteenth-century revival of Anglo-Saxon literature, and the Norman conquest. Tolkien is full of praise for the wide range of the glossary, its inclusion of both rare and common words, and the "excellence, humour, and idiomatic raciness of its illustrative quotations". He surely must have nodded in agreement with Haigh's own unequivocal statement that a local dialect "is as worthy of our care and pride as are our ancient buildings, and more than as intimately useful," and his encouragement of bilingualism in standard English and one's ancestral dialect. Huddersfield, located in West Yorkshire, is a fairly young town born during the Industrial Revolution out of a cluster of older, smaller villages. In 1890, its population was over 90,000, and it was considered one of the wealthier cities in the country, being a center for the engineering, brewing, cotton, and wool industries. Tolkien considers the dialect preserved in this glossary to be rather "conservative," retaining elements long abandoned in other regions, because of its isolation "out of the main way of such traffic as there was" before this time.

Yes, 'lunch' (as I've stated about 4 or 5 times in this debate, is used in the books, mostly by the narrator, & occasionally by upper middle class characters. Upper middle class characters among Hobbits are the exception rather than the rule, The Shire having a social organisation the nearest equivalent of which would have been probably medieval Iceland (rather than England, due to the 'anarchic' political regime favoured by Tolkien). The way 'lunch'/'dinner' is used in America is both irrelevant to the way it is used in England (specificallly the English midlands) & therefore how it would be used by Hobbits, & conversely, of supreme importance - if a sequel is to be written by an American (& before anyone accuses me of bias I'd say the same about a sequel written by a middle class english writer.

Now, to repeat myself again, it was a generalisation, made in a rush. I'll try not to do it again. It was also, as I've shown, generally correct, from a linguistic point of view. What I will concede though, is that only middle class Hobbits would (or should) use the word 'lunch', that being a contraction of luncheon, only recorded from 1829, according to the On-line Etymology Dictionary - which is the only resource I can be bothered to consult at the moment.

Well, let's see...we went from Elves (and Elvish horses) snorting to the dramatic interpretations of Lunch(eon). I don't see how one is more relevant than the other, and I do believe that you started the whole digression. .

I did do that, for which I'm heartily sorry. I even acknowledged it was a digression, & basicallly irrelevant to the main topic. I didn't mention the Elvish horses snorting, merely pointing out that Elves don't snort. The differences between Elves & their horses would probably justify a whole thread in itself, & I will not risk taking this thread any further off topic by starting a list here.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien may not have been from Yorkshire, and in contrast to davem I reckon he was quite pleased about that - he did have a fondness for Lancashire's green and verdant valleys - but he would have well known the essential difference between lunch and dinner. This is in the very blood of the English, class is of vital importance to us, to none more so than the eternally anxious middle classes.

Note how Tolkien makes play of a Lancastrian working class term for dinner - baggin becomes Baggins, a witty name for a Hobbit obsessed with his grub. Rather like snap this word comes from the fact that the working man's main meal of the day was carried off to the field or foundry in a bag.

If you think the use of 'lunch', 'dinner' and other terms amongst Hobbits is entirely casual on Tolkien's behalf you are sorely mistaken. He was an Englishman, keenly aware of class and language and how they are interlinked, as shown in his work; in The Shire there is much satire on the British way of life - cast that subtlety aside at your peril ;)

[davem]

What's interesting is that 'lunch' does not appear in The Hobbit at all ('lunchtime' is used once) - based on an overly quick skim. In FotR the word is used 8 times - 7 times by the narrator & once by Pippin. In TT it is used twice - once by Merry & once by Gimli:

'No, I don't think so," Merry laughed. "But that is another story, which can wait until after lunch." "Well let us go and have lunch then!" said the Dwarf. - though there one gets the sense that Gimli is 'mirroring' Merry's language, either out of politeness or friendly teasing - 'lunch' is hardly a Dwarvish term one feels.

In RotK it isn't used at all. Hence, a specifically middle-class term for the mid-day meal * (arising, as I stated, in the early 19th Century), &, given the nature of Hobbit society, not one that would be in general usage - given the fact that Hobbits are based on rural English folk & that 'lunch' is not a word used by rural English folk.

* cf the Asparagus/'Sparrowgrass' thing - Asparagus is to Lunch what Sparrowgrass is to dinner. Or, in other words, Merry & Pippin would eat Asparagus for lunch, while Sam & the Gaffer would have Sparrowgrass for dinner. Or the bitter Nasturtians/Nasturtiums controversy.....

[Morthoron]

If you think the use of 'lunch', 'dinner' and other terms amongst Hobbits is entirely casual on Tolkien's behalf you are sorely mistaken. He was an Englishman, keenly aware of class and language and how they are interlinked, as shown in his work; in The Shire there is much satire on the British way of life - cast that subtlety aside at your peril

In RotK it isn't used at all. Hence, a specifically middle-class term for the mid-day meal * (arising, as I stated, in the early 19th Century), &, given the nature of Hobbit society, not one that would be in general usage - given the fact that Hobbits are based on rural English folk & that 'lunch' is not a word used by rural English folk.

*The Dark Elf notes with delight the continuance of a digression*

Considering the controversy swirling about the terms 'lunch' and 'dinner' (which obviously is the demarkation point between civilized society and utter chaos), I briefly perused LOTR this morning and found a discussion in the Ivy Bush between the Gaffer, Old Noakes, Ted Sandyman, Daddy Twofoot and other rustic, working class stiffs. This comment I found most interesting:

'I've heard they went on the water after dinner in the moonlight," said Old Noakes, and it was Drogo's weight as sunk the boat.'

Two things here: 1) 'dinner' takes place in the evening, and 2) the phrase 'as sunk the boat' identifies Old Noakes' speech pathology as working class, as neither Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin use such figures of speech (which are reserved to identify rustics such as Sam, the Gaffer and Sandyman).

I think you're both confusing Hobbits with actual people. The Hobbits, even the poorest, ate more meals a day ('six if they could get it') than we do; ergo, they would naturally have more designations for meal times that the entire Hobbitish society would consider acceptable terminology.

[Morwen]

Fascinating digression. I can't help but think this is precisely the kind of debate that would take place if persons began creating/reformulating "official" Middle Earth stories. Do Elves snort? Do Hobbits have 'lunch'? And of course the eternal question "What would Tolkien say?"

[davem]

Two things here: 1) 'dinner' takes place in the evening, and 2) the phrase 'as sunk the boat' identifies Old Noakes' speech pathology as working class, as neither Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin use such figures of speech (which are reserved to identify rustics such as Sam, the Gaffer and Sandyman).

Hobbits have no beards. There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off. They are inclined to be fat in the stomach; they dress in bright colours (chiefly green and yellow); wear no shoes, because their feet grow natural leathery soles and thick warm brown hair like the stuff on their heads (which is curly); have long clever brown fingers, goodnatured faces, and laugh deep fruity laughs (especially after dinner, which they have twice a day when they can get it) (TH An Unexpected Party).

Clearly the 'dinner' Noakes is referring to is 'second' dinner.

In The Council of Elrond we have Bilbo stating:

'Exactly! And who are they to be? That seems to me what this Council has to decide, and all that it has to decide. Elves may thrive on speech alone, and Dwarves endure great weariness; but I am only an old hobbit, and I miss my meal at noon. Can't you think of some names now? Or put it off till after dinner?'

Even Pippin is not averse to using the traditional term for the mid-day meal:

'Nine o'clock we'd call it in the Shire,' said Pippin aloud to himself. 'Just the time for a nice breakfast by the open window in spring sunshine. And how I should like breakfast! Do these people ever have it, or is it over? And when do they have dinner, and where?'

Now, unless you want to argue that Pippin, thinking he has missed breakfast, is expecting the next meal to be an evening 'dinner' (ie that he is planning on going from nine in the morning to six or seven in the evening without food) one has to assume that he is thinking of the meal that follows breakfast - which is not 'lunch', apparently, but 'dinner'.

What this clearly shows is that 'lunch' is not even the only way that middle class Hobbits refer to the mid-day meal. They will as happily say 'dinner'. What we see, therefore, is that the mass of Hobbits call the mid-day meal 'dinner'. A couple of middle class dandies among them use the affected term 'lunch'. All other uses of 'lunch' are down to the narrator/translator.

[Morthoron]

Clearly the 'dinner' Noakes is referring to is 'second' dinner.

Hmmm...and what happened to 'supper', another one of your unshakeable social institutions? Or are you now saying that supper is not part of the equation? Would Old Noakes (a rustic by speech pathology) be inclined or be able to afford 'second dinner', or would he be of Yorkshire persuasion and eschew the term 'dinner' (which is 'lunch') and instead use 'supper' (which is 'dinner')? By your use of the word 'clearly' you are trying to impose and absolute on something that is not clear-cut in the least; in fact, as with many discussions I've had regarding Tolkien over the last few decades, one can say that Tolkien emulates the Elves: he says both yes and no.

Even Pippin is not averse to using the traditional term for the mid-day meal:

Imagine that, Pippin using 'lunch ' and 'dinner' synonymously (just as if it didn't matter to him in the least). Perhaps it didn't matter in the least to Tolkien as well. Actually, the more quotes I read, the more he seems to be disinclined to give an official designation to anything but breakfast.

What this clearly shows is that 'lunch' is not even the only way that middle class Hobbits refer to the mid-day meal. They will as happily say 'dinner'. What we see, therefore, is that the mass of Hobbits call the mid-day meal 'dinner'. A couple of middle class dandies among them use the affected term 'lunch'. All other uses of 'lunch' are down to the narrator/translator.

Again, your attempt to use absolutes is untenable, just as implying that the term 'lunch' is an upper-class term is unsupportable. It is obvious to me they are interchangeable, just as, by your own designation, 'dinner' and 'supper' are interchangeable. An upper class Hobbit uses lunch and dinner synonymously (surprising that a 'middle-class dandie' would deign to use a term below his station), and a lower class Hobbit uses dinner in place of what clearly should be supper (which would be absolutely unacceptable in Yorkshire).

As far as 'lunch' being used often by the narrator/translator, just whom do you think that is, exactly? My guess would be the author, Tolkien, hadn't the slighest concern over using the term 'lunch' in any applicable situation.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Fascinating digression. I can't help but think this is precisely the kind of debate that would take place if persons began creating/reformulating "official" Middle Earth stories. Do Elves snort? Do Hobbits have 'lunch'? And of course the eternal question "What would Tolkien say?"

Morwen - Interesting comment, but it seems to me that we're already doing this in connection with the central writings of Tolkien: weighing the meaning of words and drawing attention to various cultural/religious nuances according to the different perspectives and persuasions of each reader. The debate on this thread over vocabulary is not unique. So,other than the last question you raise, I'm not sure how different the conversations actually would be in relation to any later additions to the Legendarium. Basically, it would be just more of the same. I'm not raising the whole question of the rightness or wrongness of those additions.....merely noting that the process of argument you've described is one that is already taking place.

[Morwen]

I'm not suggesting that the digression's discussion of language, use of words is somehow unique.
But for me it highlights one of the problems for anyone who would wish to create new ME stories - whether their use of language or their potrayal of characters is consistent with what already exists, i.e. Middle Earth as Tolkien conceived it. Commenting on Tolkien's use of language is one thing. Discussing another person's use of language in an attempt to create ME fiction is another.The conversations/debates that would follow would differ from what exist as they would be examining not just the meaning or nuances of this word or that but whether the word should have been used at all, whether a particular character in ME can accurately be described as behaving in a particular way.

[davem]

Hmmm...and what happened to 'supper', another one of your unshakeable social institutions? Or are you now saying that supper is not part of the equation? Would Old Noakes (a rustic by speech pathology) be inclined or be able to afford 'second dinner', or would he be of Yorkshire persuasion and eschew the term 'dinner' (which is 'lunch') and instead use 'supper' (which is 'dinner')? By your use of the word 'clearly' you are trying to impose and absolute on something that is not clear-cut in the least; in fact, as with many discussions I've had regarding Tolkien over the last few decades, one can say that Tolkien emulates the Elves: he says both yes and no.

Not following this line of argument. Noakes refers to 'dinner' as an evening meal. Hobbits have two dinners when they can get them. Where supper comes into it I'm not sure. I will say though that 'supper' is often used to refer to a very light meal taken just before bed, & one wouldn't usually go out after supper - that's not a rule though.

Imagine that, Pippin using 'lunch ' and 'dinner' synonymously (just as if it didn't matter to him in the least). Perhaps it didn't matter in the least to Tolkien as well. Actually, the more quotes I read, the more he seems to be disinclined to give an official designation to anything but breakfast.

No. You're missing the point. These distinctions are extremely significant - & extremely noticeable for an English reader. Look - I'm sure that there are distinctions in speech patterns & phraseology between New Yorkers, Texans & Californians which I wouldn't pick up on, but you would. There are also class distinctions even in the US - a homeless man in New York would speak very differently from a Yale graduate. In England - & particularly in the rural Edwardian England that Tolkien used as a model for the Shire, there were very fine distinctions in phraseology.


Again, your attempt to use absolutes is untenable, just as implying that the term 'lunch' is an upper-class term is unsupportable. It is obvious to me they are interchangeable, just as, by your own designation, 'dinner' and 'supper' are interchangeable. An upper class Hobbit uses lunch and dinner synonymously (surprising that a 'middle-class dandie' would deign to use a term below his station), and a lower class Hobbit uses dinner in place of what clearly should be supper (which would be absolutely unacceptable in Yorkshire).

I implied it was a middle class term (or upper middle class). The fact that to you as an American the terms are interchangeable & to me as an English person they are not is the whole point. To you a rural working class Hobbit like the Gaffer having 'lunch' is perfectly fine. To me it would stick out like a sore thumb & feel wrong - because I know how rural English folk speak.

As far as 'lunch' being used often by the narrator/translator, just whom do you think that is, exactly? My guess would be the author, Tolkien, hadn't the slighest concern over using the term 'lunch' in any applicable situation.

Sorry, but an English ear will pick up on subtleties of speech & terminology which a non English ear will not. You can argue about the interchangeability of lunch/dinner & dinner/supper till the cows come home. I accept that a new M-e novel which treated those terms (& others) as interchangeable would not cause a problem for non English readers. I'm just telling you that for English readers they would jar.

[Raynor]

As far as 'lunch' being used often by the narrator/translator, just whom do you think that is, exactly? My guess would be the author, Tolkien, hadn't the slighest concern over using the term 'lunch' in any applicable situation.I would go further, and point that LotR was written by hobbits, Bilbo, Frodo, and even Sam.

I am also curious concerning the moment in time when these "classes" presumably appeared in the Shire, esspecially the aristocracy. Since the Third Age is some 6.000 years ago, could there have been such a thing as a middle class ? Isn't this a notion forced upon this work?

[Lalwendë]

Sorry, but an English ear will pick up on subtleties of speech & terminology which a non English ear will not. You can argue about the interchangeability of lunch/dinner & dinner/supper till the cows come home. I accept that a new M-e novel which treated those terms (& others) as interchangeable would not cause a problem for non English readers. I'm just telling you that for English readers they would jar.

Indeed, and they would also be differences Tolkien would have been acutely aware of. He was a product of the most class-conscious period of our history, and a product of one sector of that society that would be more aware of it than any other - he was part of the 'poor middle class', having a widowed mother trying to survive and maintain a genteel lifestyle on a pittance; she probably had less income than a working tradesman would at that time.

Yet another subtlety that someone not brought up in this class conscious society might not pick up on is how words can be used and mis-used for effect. If a character like Pippin breaks rank and uses dinner for lunch there's no proof in that being an indicator of his 'class' - we know he is an upper crust young Hobbit so why would he do that? The answer is that young upper crust people often do break rank and use language outside the norm, just as the aristocracy share with the working class a liking for simple food such as bangers and mash and a love of vulgar humour, you'll often hear upper crust lads asking where the 'bogs' or 'traps' are, taking up lower class words and behaviours as a way of establishing 'difference' or eccentricity. I've no doubt Glastonbury this weekend was full of Oxbridge trustafarians, looking like crusties but in reality being the sons and daughters of lords.

But a class-anxious middle class person would never ever use words 'below' them - you'd never get a Sackville-Baggins using dinner for lunch unless it was a social faux pas (I'll bet they used napkin rings though ;) ).

'Supper' is a word used by all classes, but again this has differences. Supper as used by most people refers to something you'd eat towards bedtime, a pot of tea, a bit of toast maybe. But Supper as used by higher classes is also used interchangeably with 'dinner' - maybe it should be referred to as Suppah, as that's how it's pronounced ;)

[davem]

I would go further, and point that LotR was written by hobbits, Bilbo, Frodo, and even Sam.

Taking the translator conceit into account we have to distinguish between what was written by Hobbits (& what was supplimented by the Wise - like Findegil) & the choice of words made by the translator. The Red Book was a composite work, put together by more than Hobbits.

[Morthoron]

Not following this line of argument. Noakes refers to 'dinner' as an evening meal. Hobbits have two dinners when they can get them. Where supper comes into it I'm not sure. I will say though that 'supper' is often used to refer to a very light meal taken just before bed, & one wouldn't usually go out after supper - that's not a rule though.

Your ever-evolving argument, while fascinating, is becoming very convoluted. You have a set perception of what you'd 'like' to see as Tolkien's implication; however, I believe that any reasonable person who is not trying to cast a certain light on the text would see the terminology varies and does not remain constant from a societal standpoint. Let's review your argument:

'Nuncheon' might work for a midday meal, but Hobbits would have Dinner at mid-day. Breakfast, dinner, tea, supper. That's what Tolkien's models in Warwickshire & Berkshire would call them. Hobbits, in short, never, ever have 'lunch'.

This was you first assertion. You were adamant that there was no 'lunch' at mid-day but rather dinner. Then you clearly emphasize that supper is the final meal.

I grew up among the English working class, & my whole family without exception were of the English working class, & I can tell you that at mid-day the English working class, certainly up to very recent years, have 'dinner' at mid-day, not 'lunch'.

Again, dinner at midday.

Now, unless you want to argue that Pippin, thinking he has missed breakfast, is expecting the next meal to be an evening 'dinner' (ie that he is planning on going from nine in the morning to six or seven in the evening without food) one has to assume that he is thinking of the meal that follows breakfast - which is not 'lunch', apparently, but 'dinner'.

Dinner has now supplanted both lunch and supper; in fact you have abandoned supper altogether as it does not fit from your original model, even though you maintain that Pippin, as a 'middle-class dandie' should be using the term 'lunch' as he does elsewhere.

I implied it was a middle class term (or upper middle class). The fact that to you as an American the terms are interchangeable & to me as an English person they are not is the whole point. To you a rural working class Hobbit like the Gaffer having 'lunch' is perfectly fine. To me it would stick out like a sore thumb & feel wrong - because I know how rural English folk speak./

From the previous quote, you yourself maintain that Pippin implied 'dinner' was in fact 'lunch' (as in a mid-day meal). Pippin uses the term interchangeably. The term 'dinner' was used as a late evening meal (moonlight) by the rustic Old Noakes, which you insist is 'second dinner' (even though Noakes makes no such distinction), which goes directly against your original posit that all lower class Englishmen would refer to the meal after tea as supper.

Sorry, but an English ear will pick up on subtleties of speech & terminology which a non English ear will not. You can argue about the interchangeability of lunch/dinner & dinner/supper till the cows come home. I accept that a new M-e novel which treated those terms (& others) as interchangeable would not cause a problem for non English readers. I'm just telling you that for English readers they would jar.

You refuse to see the interchangeability that is evident in the text and which you have brought up yourself. Your own bias has clouded your ability to ascertain that there is no absolute in this discussion; therefore, I am bowing out of this aspect of the thread.

[Raynor]

Taking the translator conceit into account we have to distinguish between what was written by Hobbits (& what was supplimented by the Wise - like Findegil) & the choice of words made by the translator. The Red Book was a composite work, put together by more than Hobbits.Then there is no issue, right? Because if even in the original work we can find words that, according to some ;), are not supposed to be there, but they appear due to the intervention of other hands, then any such "slip-ups" in new works are understandable, and excusable, due to the same reasons. If you have no problem with the original, you should have no problem with the new work, as far as this point is concerned.

[Bêthberry]

This discussion is hilarious! :D

One side insists on yoking Tolkien's language with the social, cultural and historical aspects of language in the Primary World.

Previously, I do believe that the argument was strenuously insisted upon that for Tolkien's work to succeed, it cannot break the illusion of the sub-created world by referencing the Primary World. Thus, any explanation of the terminology which relies upon language use in that class-ridden little septic isle ( ;) ) means that Tolkien failed to maintain the illusion of his sub-created world -- or that the reader breaks the veil.

Really, I hardly think that a reader needs to know the petty little nuances of English social class distinctions (hah--now there's a double word if ever one existed) at the end of the nineteenth century/early twentieth to enjoy the books or appreciate the fact that food was an important aspect for hobbits. Perhaps these comments highlight just how onerous is Sam's and Frodo's struggle to survive and destroy the Ring when even lembas runs out. :)


. . . I find it interesting that as in LOTR, Bilbo began writing the Red Book, then he gave it to Frodo to continue, and Frodo gave it Sam and so on... that it reflected how Tollien himself began writing the mythology for ME and he passed it on to Christopher to continue. So who does it go to next? Is it not within us all to continue on in our own way? We won't all have the same story to tell, but does that mean that we should't tell it? That's just my thought on the subject.

This is a particularly appropriate and fascinating analogy; since I repped positively the post, I thought I might as well bring attention to the idea here on the thread, as it had not received any comment. Of course, Tolkien knew a thing or two about how language and stories change. He built that into his own writing, layering the stories through translators and successive writers. Perhaps he simply used this as a literary technique but one wonders if, by giving CT literary stewardship, so to speak, of Middle-earth, Tolkien was attempting to control that kind of literary dispersion? Welcome to the Downs, Aurel.

EDIT: I've editted this last paragraph to make it reflect my sincere thoughts about Aurel's comments, in case the original comment could be misconstrued and I wrote in haste. I received an unsigned negative rep for this post, stating it was "offensive and patronizing," but I had previously positively repped and commented on Aurel's post. I have no idea how many "points" I lost, since I don't particularly keep track of my rep count, so I can't guess if it was a "rep heavy" Downer or not who objected to my comments. I wonder if the anonymity was accidental--we call can accidentally forget to sign a rep comment--or deliberate. If deliberate, why lack the courage to stand by your comment?

[davem]

Ok. Let's say Breakfast, second breakfast, dinner, tea, second dinner, & supper - & we get 'six square meals a day'.

Finally, to get back to my initial post – I was attempting to show how 'lunch' 'felt' wrong, & being in a hurry threw out a few suggestions as to options which might sound better. Being picked up on that I attempted to develop the argument, & show why. That developed into a discussion on the rightness or wrongness of 'lunch'. I think I've shown that 'lunch' is a middle-class Victorian neologism, & its usage would smack of 'putting on airs' to the majority of Hobbits ('Battle Gardens' is thrown out in favour of 'New Row' for the same reason).

What we can say is that the translator/narrator may use lunch & dinner interchangeably. Pippin may also use them interchangeably, but no other character does. Other characters use 'dinner' in every case & Merry uses 'lunch' in the only example we have of him referring to said meal.

Hence, Hobbits don't have 'lunch' – unless they are young men about town putting on airs (as they did in choosing to wear their armour around the Shire long after Sharkey & his ruffians had been dispatched). What you're missing is that their use of 'lunch' is deliberate on Tolkien's part in portraying their characters. It's precisely because Hobbits in general don't 'do lunch' that its significant that Merry & Pippin do.

[The Saucepan Man]

This discussion is hilarious!This distinctly un-class-conscious middle class Englishman rather agrees. :D

*********************

Sam: “By my reckonin’, Mister Frodo, it’s high time for dinner.”

Frodo: “Dinner? But it’s only just gone midday, Sam.”

Sam: “That’s right, Mister Frodo. Dinner-time.”

Frodo: “Surely you mean lunch-time, Sam?”

Gollum: “Yesss Master, we thinks it’s lunch-time too. Let's do lunch, my preciousss.”

Sam: “Beggin’ your pardon, Mister Frodo, sir, but I’m not sure as I get your meaning. My old Gaffer always insists on six square meals a day: Breakfast, second breakfast, dinner, tea, second dinner, and supper. No mention of this ‘lunch’, whatever that may be when it’s at home.”

Frodo: “Ugh! You mean to say that you don’t ‘do lunch’, Sam? Really, I don’t believe that I can stand your company a moment longer. Come on, Smeagol, let’s leave this grubby little oik here and go on without him.”

*********************

Translator’s note: It is my unfortunate duty to record that Frodo was consumed by Shelob only two days following this incident. The Ring was subsequently picked up by an Orc patrol out of Cirith Ungol and conveyed to Sauron, resulting in his complete and utter victory over the Free Peoples. Gandalf, on the voyage back to Aman, was heard to curse himself for relying on such a ridiculously class conscious people as Hobbits to save the world.

:p ;)

[davem]

This distinctly un-class-conscious middle class Englishman rather agrees. :D

'fraid the middle classes are the most class conscious of all - they just like to think they aren't....

Really, I hardly think that a reader needs to know the petty little nuances of English social class distinctions (hah--now there's a double word if ever one existed) at the end of the nineteenth century/early twentieth to enjoy the books or appreciate the fact that food was an important aspect for hobbits. Perhaps these comments highlight just how onerous is Sam's and Frodo's struggle to survive and destroy the Ring when even lembas runs out.

But its not about the importance of food - its about the importance of language - which is the reason Tolkien expended so much time on getting speech patterns correct. Of course, most readers don't pick up on it - or would care about it if they did. Its a bit like the medieval masons carving stones that wouldn't ever be seen by visitors to Cathedrals, being behind columns or so high as to be impossible to make out - they were building to the glory of God & sought to make their work as perfect as possible.

What kind of characters would throw around neologisms? Bilbo, Frodo, & the other Hobbits don't say 'lunch', they say 'dinner'. Anyone who can't see that the use of such a neologism by two young men about town is significant is missing a very interesting bit of social commentary on Tolkien's part.

Of course, it doesn't matter if all you're concerned about is the story itself. But LotR is not simply a 'story' its a secondary world & the details matter. Of course one can laugh the whole thing off - I suspect Tolkien may have been having fun with the 'lunch' thing too, but that doesn't mean its insignificant.

[Raynor]

So first it was class issue,
Middle-class Hobbits say 'lunch' & middle-class Hobbits are in the minority in the Shire.But not anymore - now it's an age thing.
What kind of characters would throw around neologisms? Bilbo, Frodo, & the other Hobbits don't say 'lunch', they say 'dinner'.What's next?

[Lalwendë]

This distinctly un-class-conscious middle class Englishman rather agrees. :D


Aye, spoken as only a modern middle-class Englishman could ;)

Still, I suppose claiming that the classes do not matter any more helps negate the possibility of social fax pas involving garden gnomes, napkins and what you call the toilet, front room and settee. That's why one Tony Blair claims we now live in a meritocracy where class does not matter; this may be fine in The River Cafe but he might find otherwise as he folds his napkin up after a midday-meal* in the Dorchester. :P

*this being a nice bland corporate term we could use instead, when it comes time for the next edition of LotR, so as not to confuse readers from more egalitarian societies on t'other side of t'pond, t'channel, t'watford gap and t'40% income tax bracket.

Funny how nothing seems to ruffle feathers more these days when you bring up class and language in discussion, yet nevertheless, despite the metrosexual tendencies of the modern reader, Tolkien was a product of a class-conscious society and was well aware of the issue. You only have to read the first couple of chapters of The Hobbit to discover a fabulous and gentle satire on middle-class mores, and that's just the beginning of Tolkien's use of the class structure in his work.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Taters, potatoes...let's call the whole thing off.

[Thenamir]

You know, this is, in my not-so-humble opinion, becoming rather like the story about a rich man who commissioned a team of sculptors to fashion a statue of an elephant. The sculptors thought it would make the statue more interesting to add a houdah on the elephant's back and, of course then there had to be a rajah in the conveyance, and before long all the sculptors were focusing their attention on designing the filigree to be sculpted into the rings on the rajah's left index finger.

You all realize, of course, that so passionately arguing that "the finer points of Tolkien's uses of idioms-peculiar-to-the-English are inviolable" wholly invalidates every edition of LOTR that has been translated into other languages. I mean, let's recall every edition in Italian or Swahili, becuase everyone knows you can't have a proper "secondary world" in any language other than Tolkien's original English. Any other language would lose the intangible flavor (or is it "flavour") and local color (or "colour") of the original, and by Eru, we just can't have that. If Tolkien was so careful about language and not-letting-real-world-references-intrude-upon-the-secondary, then riddle me this, Batman: just what in Middle-Earth is a "pop-gun"?"It is not like you, Bilbo, to keep friends waiting on the mat, and then open the door like a pop-gun!"

Much has been made of the Learned Professor's quote decrying the "deplorable cultus" surrounding his Magnum Opus, but here as seldom elsewhere do I see the elevating of LOTR to near-Biblical status, with nearly the same injunction:"if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book" -- Revelation 22:18 I differ with Davem in that while LOTR is one of the most profoundly moving works of fantasy genius, it is just a story. I know that's like calling Romeo and Juliet "just a play", but while it is one of the most famous plays in history, no one would so dissect it as to fume and fuss over his choice of "dinner" over "supper" in a particular scene.

Within the bounds of legality we cannot add to the "canon" of Middle-Earth, but that has not stopped new stories from being written and shared around. We can try to bring this thread back on-topic by discussing whether we should do so, or whether Tolkien intended that others could or should do so, but please let us not elevate LOTR to the realm of the sacred. There are enough revisions and corrections to successive editions to make "infallibility" a moot question.

Personally, I rather enjoyed Gilthalion's "The Hobbits" story in the fan-fic section, and was able to read it and enjoy it as a ripping good piece. The first chapter, describing the death of Mistress Rose, actually brought tears to my eyes. But I wasn't about to pick out whether he chose to use "blueberries" or "cherries" in the pies she baked just before she died. That smacks of verbally breaking something apart to see how it works, and as Gandalf said, He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
Well, I've given my detractors a whole new set of targets. Let's hope their ammunition is running low. :D

[davem]

Translation is a difficult issue - Tolkien wrote a guide for translators of LotR, & there have been numerous essays on the finer points of the translator's art in regards to Tolkien's work.

The simple fact is that no novel can be translated in such a way as to preserve all its subtleties ('Bottom, though art translated!') & much will be lost, particularly with a novel like LotR. I'm sure there are aspects of LotR & TH which will only be noticed by English readers - & English readers of a certain age & background at that - just as there are aspects of War & Peace or Don Quixote which I as an English reader only able to read those works in translation will never pick up on unless they are pointed out to me by a Russian or Spanish reader. Now, an awareness of those aspects will not be necessary to understand the novels, or appreciate the bigger picture. It is not necessary to be aware of the difference between lunch & dinner for an English reader in order to understand LotR. It is a very minor point of interest & I admit that most English readers will not care one way or the other, let alone readers from other countries, & especially those who read the work in translation.

However, there's a difference between saying 'x' is insignifcant, & is hardly worth making a fuss about, & saying 'x' doesn't exist. The lunch/dinner thing is a little bit of social commentary which an English reader would pick up on & a non English reader probably would not. It seems to me that, unusually, some posters have taken such umbrage with my posts that they are ignoring what I consider to be a very interesting little insight into class differences in The Shire.

And the wider point? A writer of M-e stories who doesn't get that there is a vast difference for an English reader between lunch & dinner is probably not going to get (or pay attention to) other linguistic & social differences. You see Tolkien based the Hobbits & The Shire on the rural folk he knew in Sarehole at the time of the Diamond Jubilee, & used their speech patterns along with their social structure. Once you start saying 'x' is such a minor point that its not worth bothering about you start down a potentially very slippery slope into generic fantasy, & end up writing 'Dragonlance' books:

Halflings in Dungeons & Dragons have been further divided into various subraces:

* Hairfoot halflings were the standard, "common" subrace of halflings in the game's earlier editions. Clearly derived from Tolkien's Harfoots, they most clearly resembled Middle-earth's hobbits, being a good-natured race of homebodies with fur-covered feet. With the advent of the game's Third Edition, they were replaced by lightfoot halflings.
* Tallfellow halflings were based on Tolkien's Fallohides. They are taller than hairfoot or lightfoot halflings, with lighter hair and skin tone, and prefer to build their homes in woodlands. They have survived the change to Third Edition more or less intact.
* Stout halflings were based on Tolkien's Stoors. Shorter but broader than hairfoot halflings, stouts make good craftsmen. In Third Edition they were renamed as deep halflings but have otherwise remained unchanged.
* Furchin, or polar halflings, are the rarest of the subraces. They live in arctic regions and can grow facial hair. Some media, including the Age of Wonders game series, refer to them as frostlings. In the game series Age of Wonders halflings are a good alignment whilst frostlings are a neutral alignment.
* Lightfoot halflings are the standard halfling subrace of Third Edition. They are more removed from Tolkien's halflings, being athletic and ambitious opportunists, although they retain their love of comfort and family. They differ visually from the stereotypical depiction of halfings; rather than having the thicker proportions normally associated with halfings or hobbits, they are slender and graceful in appearance, resembling a human gymnast in miniature.

At some point you have gone too far & are writing something else, & once you start claiming 'this' isn't worth bothering over, or 'that' doesn't signify, you're going to end up with something that is effectively a parody of Tolkien rather than a follow up.

[Raynor]

It seems to me that, unusually, some posters have taken such umbrage with my posts that they are ignoring what I consider to be a very interesting little insight into class differences in The Shire.I am curious, who can point to the very existence of classes in the Shire, before we go into the finer points of language?

[Lalwendë]

I am curious, who can point to the very existence of classes in the Shire, before we go into the finer points of language?

Have a flick round the Downs. It's been discussed many, many times. Plus you ought to hear what Shippey and Garth have to say on the matter - very entertaining about the satire of the Sackville-Bagginses...

[Thenamir]

Forgive me for stamping my foot so loudly, I believe I broke a bone or two. I suppose that one of my points was that the story is a great story, even if you don’t get all the English class references when you read it in German or Chinese. I would propound a new question for discussion here, directly related to the original thread topic.

Assume for a moment that gifted writers would be allowed with the blessing of the Tolkien Estate to write books or collections of short stories as additions to “canon”. Assume further that the overarching LOTR story can be understood and appreciated as genius in other languages, despite the lack of nuance that, presumably, only English readers will “get.” Can new stories be written within the inviolable boundaries of races, lands, and the rich history of the original works, and yet be written in French, Russian, or even the ghastly American dialect, and still be good stories, perhaps even great stories, in themselves?

I maintain that they can. I don’t find anything particularly wrong with a snorting elf, because within my inferior USian experience a “snort” is not the haughty, rude, and disdainful thing that it seems to be to proper English gentry. If I was writing it, I perhaps would revise it to “(insert elf character name here) lifted an eyebrow in disdain,” but that essentially expresses the same thing to me.

It could even be said that if the story was rewritten to use different phrasing or perhaps different cultural settings when translated into a new language, it might have equally deep and nuanced meaning as the English version does for the English. I shudder to think what a US-inner-city version of LOTR would look like (the mind recoils in horror at the thought of Bilbo “rappin’” his poetry), but it would perhaps “reach” people that the original does not.

I’m sure the divine Miss Bb could speak better to those issues of words and communication, but to drag this wordy post back on topic, dialect and cultural trappings are not what makes LOTR special – it is the inner consistency and the universality of the themes. If someone, and it certainly won’t be me, can propound such themes within the bounds of the existing Tolkienesque sub-universe and make a good story out of it, I don’t find that invalid, even if someone writes pop-guns and pickles into a story supposedly set before such things existed…oops, that was Tolkien himself.

[Lalwendë]

It could even be said that if the story was rewritten to use different phrasing or perhaps different cultural settings when translated into a new language, it might have equally deep and nuanced meaning as the English version does for the English. I shudder to think what a US-inner-city version of LOTR would look like (the mind recoils in horror at the thought of Bilbo “rappin’” his poetry), but it would perhaps “reach” people that the original does not.


Quite frankly, they can go and listen to Enimem or Sneaped Doggy Doo-Dah or Puffed Daddy or whatever.

If you're arksin', it already 'reaches' people.

There's nowt more vomit-worthy (and patronising) than writers/artists trying to 'get down with ver kids' and churning out bogus nonsense. Ugh. It makes me think of David Cameron and his hoody hugging.

Respeck.

***

But seriously, such a notion takes away all the subtlety of the work. It would be like burning the Mona Lisa and replacing it with a Paint-By-Numbers Fuzzy Felt version.

I suppose it all depends upon whether you just like the stories or if you like the whole package. You know, like the difference between the films and the books - the former are decent enough, but the latter is the Real Thing.

[davem]

Assume for a moment that gifted writers would be allowed with the blessing of the Tolkien Estate to write books or collections of short stories as additions to “canon”. Assume further that the overarching LOTR story can be understood and appreciated as genius in other languages, despite the lack of nuance that, presumably, only English readers will “get.” Can new stories be written within the inviolable boundaries of races, lands, and the rich history of the original works, and yet be written in French, Russian, or even the ghastly American dialect, and still be good stories, perhaps even great stories, in themselves?

Yes, but how far can one move away from the original & still have the story be considered 'genuine'? I think the point that's being missed is that the Shire is not England per se, but rural Warwickshire/Berkshire at the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee - hence pickles, tomatoes & potatoes. Pop guns & express trains are in there because they are references that the original audience (Tolkien's children) for TH would have gotten. The style & references are of their time.

I maintain that they can. I don’t find anything particularly wrong with a snorting elf, because within my inferior USian experience a “snort” is not the haughty, rude, and disdainful thing that it seems to be to proper English gentry. If I was writing it, I perhaps would revise it to “(insert elf character name here) lifted an eyebrow in disdain,” but that essentially expresses the same thing to me.

No, 'snort' in reference to Elves is a bit like 'gross' in reference to Hobbits....

It could even be said that if the story was rewritten to use different phrasing or perhaps different cultural settings when translated into a new language, it might have equally deep and nuanced meaning as the English version does for the English. I shudder to think what a US-inner-city version of LOTR would look like (the mind recoils in horror at the thought of Bilbo “rappin’” his poetry), but it would perhaps “reach” people that the original does not.

Oh, I'm sure that any sequel would be designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. CoH would not have had a chance - that 'boring' start with all the family history, & that depressing ending - & who could identify with that crazy Turin?? Except that anyone familiar with Saga literature would recognise all that as part of the Saga genre, & realise that Tolkien was actually emulating Saga literature. Even Morwen is a classical saga mother-figure. People (& critics in particular) don't read the Sagas & don't get what Tolkien was doing - they don't recognise that, uniquely in modern literature, Tolkien has produced a saga equal to the Icelandic greats. In other words, what Tolkien produced was high art, not stories about Elves & Hobbits, & its the subtleties which are often (dis)missed which are essential to that.

[Raynor]

Have a flick round the Downs. It's been discussed many, many times.It is better in a discussion to present actual arguments, rather than send people on a wild goose chase - esspecially if it was you in such a thread that mentioned the Shire a case of anarchism.

[The Saucepan Man]

'fraid the middle classes are the most class conscious of all - they just like to think they aren't....

Aye, spoken as only a modern middle-class Englishman couldHelp! Help! I'm being stereotyped ...!

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm far too busy keeping up with the Joneses next door to post any more just now.

:p ;)

[Morthoron]

What kind of characters would throw around neologisms? Bilbo, Frodo, & the other Hobbits don't say 'lunch', they say 'dinner'. Anyone who can't see that the use of such a neologism by two young men about town is significant is missing a very interesting bit of social commentary on Tolkien's part.

*The Dark Elf feels himself drawn ineluctably back into the digression*

Cannot...help...myself...must...reply...BAH!

You are again incorrect. Totally. Utterly. By your reasoning, Frodo and Bilbo would certainly use the term 'lunch' because the Bagginses (Bilbo and Frodo specifically) are indeed of the same social caste as the Brandybucks and Tooks. They are 'respectable' hobbits, and their speech pathology bears it out (there are neither colorful rustic colloquialisms, nor malaprops, nor droppin' o' the 'aitches in either Frodo or Bilbo's speech). They're family is married into both the Took and Brandybuck families (first cousins, I believe), and are most certainly part of the squirearchy of the Shire.

Frodo and Bilbo bear all the earmarks of English Country gentlemen, and they certainly do not stoop to manual labor (which is what the Gaffer and Sam are for). The entire relationship between Frodo and 'his' Sam bears that out. Sam is the batman or valet to Frodo's Subaltern, a point which cannot be argued because Tolkien refers to it himself. By your convoluted miasma of rambling rhetoric, the term 'lunch' is then totally acceptable for the narrator of the story because Frodo and Bilbo wrote the bulk of the Book of Westmarch.

And please supply a direct quote from any Hobbit character of the lower classes that uses the term 'dinner' for a midday meal. You won't find it, and neither will you find a reference to 'lunch' or 'supper'. The absence of something does not prove you are correct. The only reference to a lower class Hobbit using the term 'dinner' is Old Noakes and that was concerning a meal in the moonlight.

You continue to make glaring errors due mostly to your class biases.

And now for something completely different:

Is the BD Fan-fiction forum for all intents and purposes dead? I posted an offering there starting a week ago, and have not received one scathing review regarding my impudence as an American to dare to add my scant and colonial abilities to the Middle-earth cosmology. Granted, since the tale does not concern hobbits there are no mentions of lunch or dinner, nevertheless (and harkening back to the original premise of the thread), I am wondering if such work that is not wedded to an RPG format is welcomed here any longer.

Oh, and the story can be found here...
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=000107&p=1#000001
...your comments and critiques are welcome.

[Thenamir]

You know, like the difference between the films and the books - the former are decent enough, but the latter is the Real Thing. No question, none whatsoever. And I do not in any wise advocate dumbing-down LOTR to the lowest common denominator -- to do so would be like setting a Shakespeare play in New York City...oh, wait, they did that -- wife and kids were watching Romeo and Juliet, with all the original Elizabethan Englishe, but costumed and set in NYC. I can't imagine something similar done to LOTR, but a different English setting was not my point.

How can I, as an American (i.e. one-who-speaks-only-one-language), have any assurance that the Russian who has read LOTR in only his native tongue knows the subtleties of the English version? I have to trust that the translator has made a good faith effort to become familiar enough with the work so as to render a sound and faithful translation. But to render near-verbatim English-to-(insert favorite language here) translations would mean that nothing short of an annotated version in each language, explaining the context in terms understandable to each varied culture, would suffice to convey the meanings as Tolkien intended.

I hate to keep using Shakespeare as an example, but how many moderately educated people have started to read Hamlet or Richard III, and given up after the first few scenes because the language is so archaic? Unless you annotate the text to bring the meaning up-to-date, so to speak, the brilliance of the Bard will be lost to the masses.

What am I saying by all this? That cultural trappings are not the substance. Yes, they are important, even critical, to emulating the style of an author, and even more so playing in his sandbox. But I submit that I have read stories (the aforementioned "The Hobbits" is well worth a read, though I doubt that purists will find it anything other than rubbish) that, for me, were an extension of that world that JRRT first opened for me. Do I confuse them with the originals? Not at all. But they are enjoyable reads for me, and the authors have worked hard and done their best, and I like them. (aside: I've also read much fan trash to find the few treasures...that makes them all the more special.)

Feel free to disagree, and no hard feelings if you do. I have to feel a bit sad, though, for those for whom the only window to Middle Earth is forever closed.

EDIT: Yes, but how far can one move away from the original & still have the story be considered 'genuine'? The purpose is not to move away from the original, but to stick as close to it as one can. The closer one is, the more "genuine" it will be. But who is the arbiter of genuineness? Only the reader. (Ai! Not Canonicity again!!)

[davem]

You are again incorrect. Totally. Utterly. By your reasoning, Frodo and Bilbo would certainly use the term 'lunch' because the Bagginses (Bilbo and Frodo specifically) are indeed of the same social caste as the Brandybucks and Tooks. They are 'respectable' hobbits, and their speech pathology bears it out (there are neither colorful rustic colloquialisms, nor malaprops, nor droppin' o' the 'aitches in either Frodo or Bilbo's speech). They're family is married into both the Took and Brandybuck families (first cousins, I believe), and are most certainly part of the squirearchy of the Shire.

Nope. Bilbo & Frodo are naturally conservative in behaviour & speech patters. They are old fashioned & would tend to avoid neologisms like 'lunch'. Merry & Pippin are the very opposite - use of new words would certainly reflect Tookishness.

Frodo and Bilbo bear all the earmarks of English Country gentlemen, and they certainly do not stoop to manual labor (which is what the Gaffer and Sam are for). The entire relationship between Frodo and 'his' Sam bears that out. Sam is the batman or valet to Frodo's Subaltern, a point which cannot be argued because Tolkien refers to it himself. By your convoluted miasma of rambling rhetoric, the term 'lunch' is then totally acceptable for the narrator of the story because Frodo and Bilbo wrote the bulk of the Book of Westmarch.

Yes, & Tolkien also states that Hobbits are based on rural Englsih folk from the time of the Diamond Jubilee, & they would have said dinner not lunch. Sorry, but you can't use one statement by Tolkien to try & support your argument & then ignore another one which totally destroys it.

You continue to make glaring errors due mostly to your class biases.

No. Ask any English person about the use of dinner as opposed to lunch. If an English person uses 'dinner' to refer to the mid day meal rather than 'lunch' you can tell instantly what class they are, what their social background is, what TV programmes they watched as children, what newspapers they read - or at least make a very good guess. Ok, its not quite as clear cut these days as it was back in the late 19th century, but its still there - trust me.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thena brings up a very interesting point about translations. Here in Germany, there are two translations of the LotR, one several decades old, the other was done in 2000. The first is considered better by a majority of book fans, as far as my subjective impression goes; it uses a more formal, old-fashioned language which is appropriate for the tone of the original, though it can be a bit dry.

The second was an attempt (unsuccessful, is the opinion of very many readers!) to modernize the language. It has been heavily promoted by the publisher, of course, and those who can afford only a paperback version have no choice - the older translation is still available, but only in expensive hardback.

Some of the language in the modern translation is like a badly written fan fiction, in my opinion. I am sure Tolkien would not have approved of such things as Sam calling Frodo "Boss", for example!! :eek:

However: "For some, the only glimpse. For some the awaking." Has it been positive in introducing a generation to the books? Probably - like the movies. Does it convey the spirit of Tolkien? Only partially - there are plenty of fan fictions that do better! But it's authorized, and for those who cannot read the original (which many German-speaking readers prefer if they know enough English to do so), it's all there is.


Is the BD Fan-fiction forum for all intents and purposes dead? I posted an offering there starting a week ago, and have not received one scathing review regarding my impudence as an American to dare to add my scant and colonial abilities to the Middle-earth cosmology. Granted, since the tale does not concern hobbits there are no mentions of lunch or dinner, nevertheless (and harkening back to the original premise of the thread), I am wondering if such work that is not wedded to an RPG format is welcomed here any longer.

Oh, and the story can be found here...
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=000107&p=1#000001
...your comments and critiques are welcome.

Morthoron, I could be facetious and give the usual answer that we're all dead on the Downs at any rate, but I must concede that the fan fiction forum does make a rather dead impression at times. It may the Barrow's Sleeping Beauty, in need of some stout princes to hack their way through the Hedge of Forgetfulness and kiss it awake again! It's good to be reminded of new stories when they are posted there - and it's good to remind authors of unfinished stories (*whistles innocently) that readers may like to find out what happens next. Perhaps I should start a sticky thread for posting about the fan fiction forum - announcements of new stories, etc. could go there.

[Morthoron]

Nope. Bilbo & Frodo are naturally conservative in behaviour & speech patters. They are old fashioned & would tend to avoid neologisms like 'lunch'. Merry & Pippin are the very opposite - use of new words would certainly reflect Tookishness.

Again wrong. It is amazing how you ignore the text to suit yourself; this has been the only consistent point you have maintained through your ever-changing attempts to rewrite the story along your perceived class distinctions:

There were three official meals: lunch, tea and dinner (or supper). But lunch and tea were marked chiefly by the fact that at those times all the guests were sitting down and eating together. -- A Long-expected Party

One would think that Tolkien, if he cared in the least for your view or promulgated this distinctive class action, would not have so prominently ordered his meals in such a manner for the most famous occasion to occur in the Shire for years. If one agrees that Tolkien, as a philologist, used his words very succinctly, then he would have not been so blithe as to ignore such a social convention if it mattered to him. It is of note that the author himself uses 'dinner' and 'supper' interchangeably (but not so 'lunch' and 'dinner' throughout this whole sequence), and if you believe that Hobbits wrote LOTR, then this would be a direct reminiscence of Frodo or Bilbo (considering Sam would never use the term 'lunch' *winks*); otherwise, this is Tolkien himself imparting his preferences from Oxford, where they do indeed have lunch.

And as far as neologisms, Bilbo uses a neologism in the Hobbit: the word 'confusticate', as the concoction of such pseudo-Latinate words were very popular in the 19th century.

Furthermore:
"This is the signal for supper!" said Bilbo...There was a splendid supper for everyone; for everyone, that is, except for those invited to the special family dinner-party. --A Long Expected Party

After the 'feast' (a word Tolkien uses several times to define this supper) came the dreaded 'after-dinner speech'. The use of 'supper' as a 'feast' goes directly against your implication that 'supper' is a light meal just before bedtime. There is no second dinner in this application, supper (or dinner) is the meal after tea, and lunch is the mid-day meal. Again, 'dinner' and 'supper' are interchangeable.

Yes, & Tolkien also states that Hobbits are based on rural Englsih folk from the time of the Diamond Jubilee, & they would have said dinner not lunch. Sorry, but you can't use one statement by Tolkien to try & support your argument & then ignore another one which totally destroys it.

I need a reference to where Tolkien states that the Hobbits are only 'based on rural English folk from the time of the Diamond Jubilee'. I emphasize the word 'only' and 'diamond jubilee' here because you are stepping into a quagmire if you believe that Tolkien ever took merely one point of view for any of his characters/races. You supply that quote, and I shall provide several more to the contrary.

No. Ask any English person about the use of dinner as opposed to lunch. If an English person uses 'dinner' to refer to the mid day meal rather than 'lunch' you can tell instantly what class they are, what their social background is, what TV programmes they watched as children, what newspapers they read - or at least make a very good guess. Ok, its not quite as clear cut these days as it was back in the late 19th century, but its still there - trust me.

What you believe does not matter (in this instance anyway), sorry. I am reading from the text directly and there is no implication anywhere that there is a societal ban on the term 'lunch'. 'Lunch' is featured prominently in the books, and there is never an aspersion cast on the word. Dinner and lunch and dinner and supper are used interchangeably throughout the text, and you can be as indignant as you wish but that does not change the text.

P.S. Davem, I do not wish to go 'round in circles regarding this digression, all I ask is that you supply textual quotes to bolster your claim. As I mentioned in my previous reply:

And please supply a direct quote from any Hobbit character of the lower classes that uses the term 'dinner' for a midday meal. You won't find it, and neither will you find a reference to 'lunch' or 'supper'. The absence of something does not prove you are correct. The only reference to a lower class Hobbit using the term 'dinner' is Old Noakes and that was concerning a meal in the moonlight.

Everything else is merely conjecture. I have supplied specific quotes regarding the interchangeability of the word(s) in question and you have not.

[davem]

It is of note that the author himself uses 'dinner' and 'supper' interchangeably (but not so 'lunch' and 'dinner' throughout this whole sequence), and if you believe that Hobbits wrote LOTR, then this would be a direct reminiscence of Frodo or Bilbo (considering Sam would never use the term 'lunch' *winks*); otherwise, this is Tolkien himself imparting his preferences from Oxford, where they do indeed have lunch.

Hobbits did not write LotR – even if you indulge in the Translator Conceit' then Hobbits wrote only the bulk of the Red Book, which Tolkien translated. Hence, the fact that Tolkien used the word 'lunch' tell us nothing about Hobbit usage of the term – which must be inferred. Bilbo calls the mid-day meal 'dinner' – as we've seen in Rivendell, & the most likely explanation for 'lunch' being used in that context is to avoid confusion for the general reader if 'dinner' was used twice in a list of meals.

And as far as neologisms, Bilbo uses a neologism in the Hobbit: the word 'confusticate', as the concoction of such pseudo-Latinate words were very popular in the 19th century.

Confusticate is clearly utilised in TH in order to please the prospective audience – children like strange words. Lunch is a different kettle of fissssh

After the 'feast' (a word Tolkien uses several times to define this supper) came the dreaded 'after-dinner speech'. The use of 'supper' as a 'feast' goes directly against your implication that 'supper' is a light meal just before bedtime. There is no second dinner in this application, supper (or dinner) is the meal after tea, and lunch is the mid-day meal. Again, 'dinner' and 'supper' are interchangeable.

I think I stated that supper was generally a light meal before bed.

I need a reference to where Tolkien states that the Hobbits are only 'based on rural English folk from the time of the Diamond Jubilee'. I emphasize the word 'only' and 'diamond jubilee' here because you are stepping into a quagmire if you believe that Tolkien ever took merely one point of view for any of his characters/races. You supply that quote, and I shall provide several more to the contrary.

Just as I need a quote where Tolkien stated that Sam is only based on WWI batmen Tolkien knew. Although I never actually stated they are only based on the people Tolkien had known as a child.

What you believe does not matter (in this instance anyway), sorry. I am reading from the text directly and there is no implication anywhere that there is a societal ban on the term 'lunch'. 'Lunch' is featured prominently in the books, and there is never an aspersion cast on the word. Dinner and lunch and dinner and supper are used interchangeably throughout the text, and you can be as indignant as you wish but that does not change the text.

Lunch is not 'featured prominently in the text' – it is used by three characters – once by Pippin, twice by Merry & once by Gimli – the other times it appears it is used by the narrator/translator- which may tell us a great deal about the narrator/translator but little about Hobbits. Now, you are free to read the book as you wish. You're free to believe that Tolkien wasn't indulging in social commentary when he used the word. You're free to believe that Hobbits have no connection with rural English folk at the end of the 19th century. You're free to believe what you want. Frankly, I'm not that bothered. Your use of Tolkien's reference to Sam as a WWI batman but your rejection of his statement that Hobbits are based on English rural folk seems a bit selective- if Sam as a batman suits your argument you will use it for support, if Hobbits as rural English folk works against your argument you reject it.

I can only repeat that you do not get the significance of the dinner/lunch thing, or how lunch/dinner are not interchangeable terms to an English person, & which one you habitually use says a very great deal about you. Tolkien was an Englishman & he would not have thought of the terms as interchangeable. However, if you want to ignore the significance you can. You will miss out on a great deal of very interesting social commentary in both TH & LotR if you do ignore such 'trivialities', but its not to everyone's taste. Its there, but you can ignore it. Anyone who is interested can check out Shippey's Author of the Century.

Honestly, I'm not sure this is actually getting anywhere anymore, as we're basically going around in circles. I shall therefore bow out of this digression gracefully

[Lalwendë]

No question, none whatsoever. And I do not in any wise advocate dumbing-down LOTR to the lowest common denominator -- to do so would be like setting a Shakespeare play in New York City...oh, wait, they did that -- wife and kids were watching Romeo and Juliet, with all the original Elizabethan Englishe, but costumed and set in NYC. I can't imagine something similar done to LOTR, but a different English setting was not my point.

How can I, as an American (i.e. one-who-speaks-only-one-language), have any assurance that the Russian who has read LOTR in only his native tongue knows the subtleties of the English version? I have to trust that the translator has made a good faith effort to become familiar enough with the work so as to render a sound and faithful translation. But to render near-verbatim English-to-(insert favorite language here) translations would mean that nothing short of an annotated version in each language, explaining the context in terms understandable to each varied culture, would suffice to convey the meanings as Tolkien intended.

I hate to keep using Shakespeare as an example, but how many moderately educated people have started to read Hamlet or Richard III, and given up after the first few scenes because the language is so archaic? Unless you annotate the text to bring the meaning up-to-date, so to speak, the brilliance of the Bard will be lost to the masses.

What am I saying by all this? That cultural trappings are not the substance. Yes, they are important, even critical, to emulating the style of an author, and even more so playing in his sandbox. But I submit that I have read stories (the aforementioned "The Hobbits" is well worth a read, though I doubt that purists will find it anything other than rubbish) that, for me, were an extension of that world that JRRT first opened for me. Do I confuse them with the originals? Not at all. But they are enjoyable reads for me, and the authors have worked hard and done their best, and I like them. (aside: I've also read much fan trash to find the few treasures...that makes them all the more special.)

Now a few things spring to mind...

First off, I know full well that a lot of kids feel 'alienated' by being presented with Shaespeare to read, but that is not their problem, nor is it Shakespeare's. It is the teacher's problem, and given the right teaching, ALL readers can come to enjoy Shakespeare! I really, really hate dumbed down curricula which, with the best intentions usually, only deny certain sectors of society from access to quality literature and quality learning. For example, this trend to kids studying excerpts instead of works. A 'sexed-up' modern version (e.g. a film, comic book etc) can stand alongside an original as a fab teaching aid (or as fun - I personally love 'graphic versions' of books), but it can never be a replacement.

Now onto language...a comparison between an British English speaker and any other English speaker might also be found in a modern English speaker and a speaker of Middle English. When I read Chaucer I pretty much understand what he wrote, but inevitably over time nuances have been lost - someone needs to tell me what these are! I am not upset nor is my intelligence insulted that someone steps in (usually a teacher or whoever writes the footnotes) to tell me what that word means, what it meant back then. Let's bring up Shakespeare again (you did so I can :P) - there are many words in his work I didn't understand until I was told what they meant - swive for example, and sneap - this latter I only discovered from talking to a modern day person from Nuneaton who uses the word in her everyday slang. I am really pleased I can find out what these words meant, it gives me greater understanding!

So, I'm not sure why folk get so indignant when say davem brings up examples of language use that are specifically English (as in culturally not linguistically), but I think this could be down to the influence of Political Correctness. It's an uncomfortable, yet inevitable fact to me that when I pick up some Goethe to read (and I do like Faust, it's ace) I will inevitably, as a non-native German speaker (actually a pretty poor speaker of German at all) not understand the full meaning of some of the words therein unless someone tells me about them. However I'm not going to get in a hissyfit over it - it's life.

As for other variations of English, yeah, I struggle with those too, and it causes much hilarity when I get American biscuits confused with English ones (along the lines of: Eyuw! Gravy? On Chocolate Hobnobs? You savages!) for example. but I'm not going to come over all insulted when a kindly American explains the difference! It's actually both funny and interesting to me. Same with a lot of songs - I just do not 'get' the references in the lyrics. Fact of life.

So we have choices:
we accept that sometimes some readers will not 'get' everything.
we accept that annotated versions are actually useful.
we don't get the hump when someone explains something from the culture of the writer.
we carry on as we are, having hissy fits because we have a chip* about thinking the other person considers us a 'colonial' or a 'foreigner' - errr, no we don't, we just want to explain what it means because it's useful and informative. Otherwise it really is Political correctness gone mad...

*it can be one from a sealed foil bag or one out of a dep fat fryer, I don't care either way...

It is better in a discussion to present actual arguments, rather than send people on a wild goose chase - esspecially if it was you in such a thread that mentioned the Shire a case of anarchism.

Hmmm, but there is a search function, and you shall find many inteersting discussions that way. Alas I aint got time to cross-reference with abandon ;)

[Sauron the White]

Throughout this thread there has been mention of fan fiction. It has been said that much of it is rather bad but there are a few treasures among the stuff. Would it be possible for anyone - or several people - to provide links to the absolute best of such Middle-earth fan fiction? Are there any gems, on this site or any other, that many knowledgable fans have developed a consensus as to their quality? I would love to read them if I had a link... or two ... or more.

[Raynor]

Hmmm, but there is a search function, and you shall find many inteersting discussions that way. Alas I aint got time to cross-reference with abandonWell, you don't need to "cross-reference with abandon". A few evidences would be enough to have a discussion. That is, if you want your new interpretation ;) on this issue of classes to be taken as more than just a personal opinion.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Sauron, our very own fan fiction site needs to be promoted more actively! Unlike general fan fiction sites, which often have few restrictions, it is moderated, so that a certain standard of writing is maintained. It is located here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi). Since recommendations would be taking this thread off-topic (as if it were still on... ;) :rolleyes: ), I will start a new thread in the Novices and Newcomers section for fan fiction infos and recommendations. It will be 'stuck' to the top, so do check it out there!

[The Saucepan Man]

For what it’s worth, davem and Lalwendë are, as one would expect, correct in their description of English terminology differing between the classes. In my experience, this is far less of an issue these days, although it can still crop up from time to time (as in the case of the recent fuss over words used by Kate Middleton’s mother, which I personally found rather cruel and silly). However, I still have my lunch during the day and my dinner in the evening, and would find it strange to do otherwise (although I use serviettes, rather than napkins, and relax on the sofa in the lounge, rather than sitting on the settee in the sitting-room ;)).

It is also fairly clear, in my view, that Tolkien based Hobbit society primarily, although not wholly, on English country life around the turn of the century, and that there is a palpable “class system” in the Shire.

That said, I find the evidence suggesting that Tolkien used the word “lunch” in LotR to support this portrayal of Hobbit society extremely thin. Had he intended to do so, I strongly suspect that he would have been more careful in his use of terminology when acting as narrator, particularly in describing proceedings at the Long Expected Party, and he would not have had Old Nokes use the term “dinner” to describe an evening meal (and nor would he have had Bilbo, an affluent middle-classed Hobbit, use the same term for the midday meal).

However, while (for these reasons) I find the substance of this digression irrelevant to the main thrust of this thread, it does raise a valid issue, which is the one that Thena has been trying to tease out. Given that Tolkien, being an individual, had a unique perspective on life, no one (not even Christopher, although he would come the closest) could ever write a tale set within Middle-earth which would be entirely consistent with Tolkien’s own Middle-earth writings. None of us would be able to ‘get’, let alone reproduce, every single ingredient which went into making his tales what they are. Does that mean that no one should try? Leaving aside the question of authorisation, which is a matter for the Estate, I cannot for the life of me see why not. If people derive pleasure from writing fan-fic and others derive pleasure from reading it, what is the problem? What does it matter if Hobbits do lunch or Elves snort? If you do not like it, you do not have to read it.

[Raynor]

It is also fairly clear, in my view, ... that there is a palpable “class system” in the Shire.If this is not a matter of personal opinion, I am really looking forward to evidences of this.

[The Saucepan Man]

If this is not a matter of personal opinion, I am really looking forward to evidences of this.Well, you can consider it a personal opinion if you disagree, but I think that it’s pretty clear from the speech patterns of the likes of Sam and the Gaffer compared with the likes of Frodo, Pippin and Merry, the relationship between Sam and Frodo (and Sam/the Gaffer and Bilbo) and from the general descriptions given of Shire society.

A fuller discussion of the point does not really belong here. There are threads which touch on this subject, although I cannot find the main the one that I have in mind (to which Child and Squatter contributed in particular, as I recall). If you are interested in exploring the point, the best thing to do (if you cannot find a suitable old thread either) is to start a new thread on the subject.

[Lalwendë]

Well, you don't need to "cross-reference with abandon". A few evidences would be enough to have a discussion. That is, if you want your new interpretation ;) on this issue of classes to be taken as more than just a personal opinion.

It in't a new interpretation, plenty of folk have seen how Tolkien gets class and 'status' into his work - the Hobbits are the prime example but you even get it amongst Men, Elves and Orcses. In fact you could say that it's one of the major themes of his work - how even those from the humblest of backgrounds, people like Sam, are just as important as the Aragorns of this world - and how those from the highest strata of society can go astray, people like Boromir.

But no, I really don't have time to be rooting up juicy quotes from aged threads - I'm trying to keep an eye on the flooding situation round here and have been since this time yesterday. Do you really think I would pass up another chance to discuss class in Tolkien's work? ;) I'm not here to write an A level essay, just to have a natter about Tolkien.

[Raynor]

Do you really think I would pass up another chance to discuss class in Tolkien's work? ;)Well, if it walks like a duck and if it talks like duck, etc... That is: yes, you seem like you are passing this chance; but, since it seems everyone but me is content with that, I guess I will just have to sit back and enjoy the ever evolving funniness of this thread.

[davem]

So I lied about being done with the digression...

dinner
1297, from O.Fr. disner, originally "breakfast," later "lunch," noun use of infinitive disner (see dine). Always used in Eng. for the main meal of the day; shift from midday to evening began with the fashionable classes. Childish reduplication din-din is attested from 1905.
supper
c.1275, "the last meal of the day," from O.Fr. super "supper," noun use of super "to eat the evening meal," which is of Gmc. origin (see sup (1)).
"Formerly, the last of the three meals of the day (breakfast, dinner, and supper); now applied to the last substantial meal fo the day when dinner is taken in the middle of the day, or to a late meal following an early evening dinner. Supper is usually a less formal meal than late dinner." [OED]
Applied since c.1300 to the last meal of Christ.On-line etymology dictionary

The point at issue is whether Tolkien would have considered lunch & dinner to be interchangeable. I say he wouldn't - 'cos he was English. And, as I've stated, Hobbits have 'dinner twice a day when they can get it' so an evening dinner does not preclude a mid day dinner - in fact it requires a mid day dinner - unless they have two dinners at night. Thus, as I stated, Breakfast, second breakfast, first dinner, tea, second dinner, supper - if Hobbits have 'six' meals a day & two of them are breakfasts, two dinners, & there is a tea & a supper in there then tehre's no room for 'lunch'. Tolkien specifically states 'two dinners'.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by SpM
However, while (for these reasons) I find the substance of this digression irrelevant to the main thrust of this thread, it does raise a valid issue, which is the one that Thena has been trying to tease out. Given that Tolkien, being an individual, had a unique perspective on life, no one (not even Christopher, although he would come the closest) could ever write a tale set within Middle-earth which would be entirely consistent with Tolkien’s own Middle-earth writings. None of us would be able to ‘get’, let alone reproduce, every single ingredient which went into making his tales what they are. Does that mean that no one should try? Leaving aside the question of authorisation, which is a matter for the Estate, I cannot for the life of me see why not. If people derive pleasure from writing fan-fic and others derive pleasure from reading it, what is the problem? What does it matter if Hobbits do lunch or Elves snort? If you do not like it, you do not have to read it.
Speaking for myself the writing and reading of fanfiction is not an issue. Of course, no one has yet posted anything to that directly states that Tolkien encouraged such a practice, in which case the answer to the thread's initial question is no. But if persons who have read LotR, etc are inspired to create their own stories and persons read and enjoy these stories, there is no problem there. As you point out, those who don't want to read fanfiction don't have to.
I too would leave the question of authorisation aside. For my part that is what I have objected to/expressed reservations about.
Back to the digression.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, no one has yet posted anything to that directly states that Tolkien encouraged such a practice, in which case the answer to the thread's initial question is no.Strictly speaking, 'not proven'. ;)

[Bêthberry]

For what it’s worth, davem and Lalwendë are, as one would expect, correct in their description of English terminology differing between the classes. In my experience, this is far less of an issue these days, although it can still crop up from time to time (as in the case of the recent fuss over words used by Kate Middleton’s mother, which I personally found rather cruel and silly). However, I still have my lunch during the day and my dinner in the evening, and would find it strange to do otherwise (although I use serviettes, rather than napkins, and relax on the sofa in the lounge, rather than sitting on the settee in the sitting-room ;)).

It is also fairly clear, in my view, that Tolkien based Hobbit society primarily, although not wholly, on English country life around the turn of the century, and that there is a palpable “class system” in the Shire.

That said, I find the evidence suggesting that Tolkien used the word “lunch” in LotR to support this portrayal of Hobbit society extremely thin. Had he intended to do so, I strongly suspect that he would have been more careful in his use of terminology when acting as narrator, particularly in describing proceedings at the Long Expected Party, and he would not have had Old Nokes use the term “dinner” to describe an evening meal (and nor would he have had Bilbo, an affluent middle-classed Hobbit, use the same term for the midday meal).

However, while (for these reasons) I find the substance of this digression irrelevant to the main thrust of this thread, it does raise a valid issue, which is the one that Thena has been trying to tease out. Given that Tolkien, being an individual, had a unique perspective on life, no one (not even Christopher, although he would come the closest) could ever write a tale set within Middle-earth which would be entirely consistent with Tolkien’s own Middle-earth writings. None of us would be able to ‘get’, let alone reproduce, every single ingredient which went into making his tales what they are. Does that mean that no one should try? Leaving aside the question of authorisation, which is a matter for the Estate, I cannot for the life of me see why not. If people derive pleasure from writing fan-fic and others derive pleasure from reading it, what is the problem? What does it matter if Hobbits do lunch or Elves snort? If you do not like it, you do not have to read it.

I think most readers of Tolkien get the point, SpM, about terminology and class distinctions. To belabour the point is to impose an inviolable meaning on the usage that is not consistently born out by the text--it is, as you say, "thin". After all, all this digression really arose from the complaint about a fanfiction that used the term "lunch" for hobbits. It was said to demonstrate the difficulty in emulating Tolkien's style.


The style/language associated with M-e is Tolkien's own, & in a strange way the tales, for me have to be told in that style, using that language. The style is an essential part of the tale being told. Hence my sudden feeling of 'NO!!!' when on reading Mith's tale of Eressea last night I came across 'Pengolodh snorted'. Elves do not 'snort'. Well, Tolkien's Elves don't. Come to that, I read one of the Downs RPG's long ago, in which a character had to run home for 'Lunch'. Now, lunch is wrong. 'Luncheon' is pushing it. 'Nuncheon' might work for a midday meal, but Hobbits would have Dinner at mid-day. Breakfast, dinner, tea, supper. That's what Tolkien's models in Warwickshire & Berkshire would call them. Hobbits, in short, never, ever have 'lunch'. Even something as trivial as that will jar some of us out of the story.


With the several examples, from both hobbits and narrator, that some of Tolkien's hobbits did in fact do lunch, the original complaint about a fanfiction's incorrect style should, I think, now be dismissed.

The interpretation of Thena's point applies not only to Christopher Tolkien but to Tolkien himself. After all, he was constantly revising for consistency, no? It is difficult to define absolutely a "Style" that evolved even with the original author, over decades.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by SpM
Strictly speaking, 'not proven'. ubb/wink.gif
True :). Still, after 300 posts somebody should have come up with something. Well, I did ask Sauron the White a while back if he could point to a quote showing Tolkien's encouragement of other tales but I believe he couldn't find any.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

True :). Still, after 300 posts somebody should have come up with something.

You asked for it (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14010).

[Morwen]

Well what I actually asked for is a quote from Tolkien expressing his views on the matter, which perhaps people might provide after voting in your poll.

[Bêthberry]

Well what I actually asked for is a quote from Tolkien expressing his views on the matter, which perhaps people might provide after voting in your poll.

What has been offerred is Tolkien Sr's own handling of the matter, within his written work and within his own papers. In LotR, he sets up the model of the translator and refers several times to how the papers come down through Bilbo and then Sam's family. Then with his own papers, he gives his son extensive rights to publish or destroy his vast collection of drafts and unpublished work. Christopher Tolkien then has himself gone through several models of editorship, from the intrusive one in The Silm, to the hands off of UT, now to CoH, which CT himself has called an artificial text (p. 289). CT calls his work trying to simulate what he [JRRT] himself did not do (p. 288).

Actions, it is said, speak louder than words.

[Morwen]

The fact that you choose to see his actions as encouraging new tales is your opinion. It can't be offered as conclusive proof of Tolkien's encouragement of new tales. As I see it, his actions, at best, might indicate that he thought Christopher might carry on the work, not that he thought that anybody might do so. This is of course my opinion and also not conclusive proof of what Tolkien may have thought.
And we could go on, exchanging opinions and speculations. What I have asked for is some concrete evidence of what Tolkien thought on the matter.

[Bêthberry]

What I have asked for is some concrete evidence of what Tolkien thought on the matter.

Well, I know that we jokingly call ourselves dead here, but I didn't think CSI type forensic data was the bailiwick of literary discussions. :D

alatar could be heading us in that direction though, with his scientific threads and all.

[davem]

With the several examples, from both hobbits and narrator, that some of Tolkien's hobbits did in fact do lunch, the original complaint about a fanfiction's incorrect style should, I think, now be dismissed.

The fanfic or rpg - whichever it was (can't remember) was set in a rural Hobbit community & I think I've shown that rural usage would exclude the usage of 'lunch' for the mid-day meal. That was the point I was making. I'm sorry that American English doesn't correspond exactly to British-(let alone late 19th Century Warwickshire-) English, but that doesn't justify dismissing as non-existent something which any English speaker of English would recognise as significant. Claiming the evidence is 'thin' is hardly relevant or correct here - I ask again whether any English person (up to very recent times at least) would not naturally choose one over the other & whether they would not be able to tell which class said choice would place a speaker in. Again, sorry, but just because in American/Canadian usage there is no significant difference between the two doesn't mean there is no significance in English usage. Unfortunately for some Tolkien was English & there are subtleties of English usage which non English people will not pick up on.

These are cultural niceties, admittedly. I'm sure, for example, a Canadian would have no problem with an American 'dismissing' similar uniquely Canadian cultural niceties & turns of phrase as meaningless, or refusing to acknowledge they even exist ....

EDIT oh yes.... :D

[Morwen]

Well, I know that we jokingly call ourselves dead here, but I didn't think CSI type forensic data was the bailiwick of literary discussions. :D

alatar could be heading us in that direction though, with his scientific threads and all. In this case we are addressing a specific question, the answer to which may or may not appear in material written by Tolkien and published either before his death or after. If it is that someone is convinced that Tolkien did encourage more ME stories by other writers, then I think the first question to ask is "Did he say so?" Looking at his actions to establish that he did encourage new tales has to be a secondary activity, a question of looking for indirect evidence where direct evidence doesn't exist. "Actions speak louder than words" isn't applicable here. Words directly address the issue. Actions have to be interpreted and interpretations may differ.

[Thenamir]

I'm sorry that American English doesn't correspond exactly to British-(let alone late 19th Century Warwickshire-) English, but that doesn't justify dismissing as non-existent something which any English speaker of English would recognise as significant.
The very point I've been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully, is not that such cultural minutia is non-existent (though it might be), but that whether or not it exists it is irrelevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the story as Tolkien intended it for a worldwide audience.

I have read all the foregoing posts about the varying interpretations of the noonday meal versus the evening meal, and come away not only unconvinced one way or the other, but reduced to a frustrating apathy about it. To me, if Tolkien had intended to make some kind of statement about the English classes, he was possessed of the wit, vocabulary, and intelligence to make it as obvious as he desired in the text, something that would be readily discerned in whatever language into which LOTR might be translated. The fact that it is not obvious (as shown by the fact that it has to be dragged through such pointed discussion) demonstrates to my own satisfaction that the niceties of meal timing were not uppermost in the author's intents.

LOTR is a genius fantasy with soaring overarching themes: Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage...and here we are consuming prodigious quantities of Net bandwidth discussing the definition of "dinner". PUH-lease, do you not see the absurdity of it?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I am the culprit.

I used the word "lunch" in my fan fiction! :eek:

In the serious one, telling the story of Frodo's friend Folco, who is mentioned at the beginning of LotR and then drops completely out of the story.

However, as I researched painstakingly, the "lunch" reference came directly from Tolkien's own words. In "Three is Company", we read: Folco went home after lunch... Since it is the last time one of Frodo's closest friends is mentioned in the book, that line sparked my interest and led me write the story.

So sue me. :rolleyes:

[Lalwendë]

The very point I've been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully, is not that such cultural minutia is non-existent (though it might be), but that whether or not it exists it is irrelevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the story as Tolkien intended it for a worldwide audience.

I have read all the foregoing posts about the varying interpretations of the noonday meal versus the evening meal, and come away not only unconvinced one way or the other, but reduced to a frustrating apathy about it. To me, if Tolkien had intended to make some kind of statement about the English classes, he was possessed of the wit, vocabulary, and intelligence to make it as obvious as he desired in the text, something that would be readily discerned in whatever language into which LOTR might be translated. The fact that it is not obvious (as shown by the fact that it has to be dragged through such pointed discussion) demonstrates to my own satisfaction that the niceties of meal timing were not uppermost in the author's intents.
LOTR is a genius fantasy with soaring overarching themes: Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage...and here we are consuming prodigious quantities of Net bandwidth discussing the definition of "dinner". PUH-lease, do you not see the absurdity of it?

I don't think Tolkien intended hos work for any audience in particular beyond his kids for The Hobbit and himself and the Inklings for LotR, all people from his little world. He had no 'global vision' in mind - such things are reserved for the modern writer and we are imposing our modern views upon him. Had he been intending such Politically Correct things for his work he might also have been a tad more careful about his 'swarthy' baddies and his lack of modern bluestocking women ;) he was also not given to writing things that might hit the reader over the head with a sledgehammer to make a 'point'. He spoke of how he disliked the tendency of Lewis to do this, he spoke of his dislike of allegory. He was subtle. Of course it is not obvious to all, but his use of class is certainly obvious to many - not only me, davem, SpM have noticed it, but you'll find Shippey and Garth too have noticed it.

The Sackville-Baggins are directly drawn from a certain class of arriviste, nouveau, middle-class English that were (and still are) prevalent when Tolkien wrote - their vocal and visible pre-occupation with money and property in contrast to Bilbo's quiet gentility.

Garth and Shippey also pointed out that they are also drawn from Tolkien's particular distaste for the self-styled Aesthetes and the Bloomsbury Set. Sackville? A name also to be found in one Bloomsbury personage Vita Sackville-West. Tolkien was known to associate more with the 'hearty' set at Oxford.

Another example is the wonderful flustering of Bilbo early in the Hobbit - it is exactly the reaction of a typical English person to an unwanted visitor - unable to turn Gandalf away and yet desperate to do so. He's suspicious of strangers, as are all Hobbits, yet unable to bring himself to be rude to them. He does not want these Dwarves eating his food yet he feels he must be hospitable. It's just wonderful. Bilbo is the perfect gentle pen-picture of the Little Englander.

And of course we all know about Sam, drawn from the ordinary English soldier, the rural boy cast into desperate circumstances.

Now, why can nobody answer my question about why you are all so flustered by the simple fact that Tolkien was English and did make use of English things? Why must we be so bland and Politically Correct? People the world over love Tolkien, Americans more than most, but they can also accept the wonderful quirky English stuff contained therein.

I know it's a hard thing to take on board that some (not necessarily all) British readers will understand some of the subtleties more than some (not necessarily all) non-British readers, but hey, it's a fact that I really don't understand many of the references in Hollywood films - I'm not insulted when someone explains them though. Someone please answer exactly what is so insulting about a British reader pointing up a British quirk to be found in a British book? Are you also insulted by reading footnotes in a Chaucer text? The Director's commentary on a difficult arty film?

So, if nobody can answer that, then the position now is that his Englishness and his class and his background is just a bit dirty somehow? Is that Political Correctness not also insulting to British readers and to Tolkien himself?

[Thenamir]

Now, why can nobody answer my question about why you are all so flustered by the simple fact that Tolkien was English and did make use of English things? I'm not flustered, except by the noise being generated by arguing the point, not whether Tolkien acknowledged class differences in the Shire, which could very well be, but by the flatulence being spewed over "dinner" versus "supper".

[davem]

The very point I've been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully, is not that such cultural minutia is non-existent (though it might be), but that whether or not it exists it is irrelevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the story as Tolkien intended it for a worldwide audience.

Its not 'irrelevant' if Tolkien put it in. Look at the nasturtians vs. nasturtiums thing. Its not a major theme in the book, & the bigger themes are accessible to everyone. But the little things which are interesting & enlightening in their own way too. If Tolkien had only wanted to focus on the big things there would be no Hobbits in the book.

I have read all the foregoing posts about the varying interpretations of the noonday meal versus the evening meal, and come away not only unconvinced one way or the other, but reduced to a frustrating apathy about it. To me, if Tolkien had intended to make some kind of statement about the English classes, he was possessed of the wit, vocabulary, and intelligence to make it as obvious as he desired in the text, something that would be readily discerned in whatever language into which LOTR might be translated. The fact that it is not obvious (as shown by the fact that it has to be dragged through such pointed discussion) demonstrates to my own satisfaction that the niceties of meal timing were not uppermost in the author's intents.

Well, first of all, to me it is glaringly obvious - it screams out. But it wouldn't necessarily do so to a non-English reader. Look, this isn't about whether the mid-day meal is called dinner or lunch. Its about who calls the mid day meal what. 'Lunch' is a term used by one class & 'dinner' is used by another class. And for the record Bilbo & Frodo are certainly not the same class as Merry & Pippin. Merry & Pippin are the closest the Shire has to an upper class, yet they are clearly not 'upper class' in the sense that Aragorn, Elrond & Galadriel are - they are 'Gentry'. Bilbo & Frodo are middle-class - but of a particular kind - Bilbo in particular is a one-nation Tory & Frodo shows much the same inclinations. M&P, to my mind, are Blairites - which is why they will adopt a neologism like 'lunch' over 'dinner', because they are 'trendy liberals' - or like to think of themselves so (as long as they can keep their nice stuff & give orders to the lower orders when necessary. Bilbo & Frodo, like Sam & the Gaffer, will favour older terms like 'dinner'. Its not about the words, but about who is speaking them. Hence, these terms are not 'interchangeable'.

LOTR is a genius fantasy with soaring overarching themes: Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage...and here we are consuming prodigious quantities of Net bandwidth discussing the definition of "dinner". PUH-lease, do you not see the absurdity of it?

Hobbits are 'absurd'. And in a sense that is the real point. Tolkien points up their absurdity repeatedly. 'We can't live too long on the heights'.
Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage.

Yes, yes. The Sil is full of that - & there's no arguing about whether its lunch or dinner in there.....only thing is The Sil doesn't touch our hearts in the way LotR does. If you look at the greats of English literature - from Chaucer down through Austen to the Brontes & Hardy, you'll find subtle commentaries on social mores - & I dare say most readers miss out on a lot of them, or dismiss them as irrelevant to the bigger points the author is making.

Everything in LotR is in there because Tolkien chose to put in there. To say 'I acknowledge it's there, but it doesn't interest me' is fine. To say 'It's not there' when it clearly is is not. Hobbits are not Numenoreans - ie they are not some kind of mid Atlantic race & The Shire is not the 51st State. It is an idealised (though not perfect) representation of the rural England Tolkien knew as a child - with its class differences, its language & its values. You can't simply dismiss that. Now, once the Shire is left behind we enter a more universal, historical/mythical world. This is not about staking a claim to Tolkien's work - its about acknowledging the sources Tolkien drew on.

[Bêthberry]

Ah ha! Estelyn has spilled the beans, drawn my thunder, precipitated my plans. I was all set to announce a contest where we all read the BD fanfiction and RPGs to find this lunch that was so nauseating for davem, but alas elves pulled me away from this sub-topic and now we all know to pursue the MeriSue. :Merisu:

The point is not that we North Americans just don't get English social status. We do. The point is not that we demand some bland Politically Correct interpretations. We don't. Those are mischaracterisations of the argument here. They are in fact red herrings that ignore the basic thrust of the various positions here.

The point is that there is no one absolute, authoritative way to read LotR or to judge its style or to hold fanfiction writers to some absolute way of writing. If lunch jumps out for some Yorkshire readers, Roman Catholic symbols and colours jump out for other readers. And literary allusions to all kinds of sagas, myths, legends, literary works, and archetypes keep wafting into other readers' minds, like savoury stew simmering.

Language changes over time as well as over water. What may serve to inspire readers of one generation will perhaps bore another generation, who will find something else in the books. And the really good fanfiction writers will be doing that mediating between their culture and the books and the milieu which formed Tolkien, if they are to attract readers to their imagined world of Middle-earth.

There are, indeed, many ways to do lunch.

[Morthoron]

The point at issue is whether Tolkien would have considered lunch & dinner to be interchangeable. I say he wouldn't - 'cos he was English. And, as I've stated, Hobbits have 'dinner twice a day when they can get it' so an evening dinner does not preclude a mid day dinner - in fact it requires a mid day dinner - unless they have two dinners at night. Thus, as I stated, Breakfast, second breakfast, first dinner, tea, second dinner, supper - if Hobbits have 'six' meals a day & two of them are breakfasts, two dinners, & there is a tea & a supper in there then tehre's no room for 'lunch'. Tolkien specifically states 'two dinners'.

Give it up, Davem, please. I find it interesting that you would quote the 'narrator' regarding the single mention of 'dinner twice a day if they can get it', and ignore the several uses of the term lunch from said narrator. You have continually discounted the narrator's mention of anything contradicting your beliefs. Oh, as a matter of fact, here's your quote:

Lunch is not 'featured prominently in the text' – it is used by three characters – once by Pippin, twice by Merry & once by Gimli – the other times it appears it is used by the narrator/translator- which may tell us a great deal about the narrator/translator but little about Hobbits.

What it tells me is that the narrator used lunch and dinner and dinner and supper interchangeably; therefore, you can't alight on the single white poppy in a whole field of red ones and say, 'Hah! All poppies are white!'

I will ask a third time, in fact I will post the same request I posted the first two times:

And please supply a direct quote from any Hobbit character of the lower classes that uses the term 'dinner' for a midday meal. You won't find it, and neither will you find a reference to 'lunch' or 'supper'. The absence of something does not prove you are correct. The only reference to a lower class Hobbit using the term 'dinner' is Old Noakes and that was concerning a meal in the moonlight.

Anything else is conjecture on your part and cannot be verified. Also, please forego outside sources that have no bearing on the text. Your original claim that Hobbits would not use the term 'lunch' has already been proven false, and you have yet to prove that dinner and lunch are not interchangeable. I have provided ample proofs that they indeed are interchangeable (and in addition to 'lunch' being an 'official' meal of Bilbo's birthday party, there is also "Folco went home after lunch" with Frodo). What it comes down to is 'lunch' is indeed a term used by Hobbits, and therefore is acceptable in a fan-fic or a new revisualization of Middle-earth.

If you'd like to discuss something that has an actual bearing on class distinctions among Hobbits (and there were many and easily discernible and textually provable), then please drop this farcical argument.

[Thenamir]

Forget wings...do Balrogs have 'lunch'? That's what this debate has become. Rather than discuss the thread topic, we digress into whatever controversy best facilitates argument without resolution, continued restatements and rehashings of tired points, seldom even dressed in new verbage. Please forgive me for interjecting my thoughts, and getting in the way of a good row. :mad:

[davem]

http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/12dial/dinner.html

[Estelyn Telcontar]

At this point, this discussion is generating more heat than light. I am therefore temporarily closing the thread to give participants time to reread the beginning pages and remember what the actual topic is. It would also be nice if the interim could be used for finding other threads or starting new, interesting discussions that will provide us all with real food for thought.

Either that, or you may use this commercial break to have breakfast, lunch, a snack, dinner, supper, or whatever you choose to call the intake of edibles at this or any other time of day in yours or any other country!

[skip spence]

I once worked with an English bloke called Ben and when he called his mid day meal "dinner" I was quite perplexed as that term, as for me at that time I thought it solely referred to an evening meal. When I asked him why he called lunch dinner he said that where he came from (which sadly I can't remember, though he'd spent most of his adult life in London) dinner is the main meal of the day, regardless of whether it's taken around noon, or in mid- or late evening. He didn't mention any class distinctions but perhaps he intentionally avoided the issue or thought me too foreign to understand.

Sorry, I just killed a few hours reading this old thread and boy did they fly by.:D

I'd love to discuss the original subject too at some point.

[Morthoron]

I'd love to discuss the original subject too at some point.

Certainly, Skip. Let's talk over lunch some time. ;)

[skip spence]

Certainly, Skip. Let's talk over lunch some time. ;)
Oh, don't be so posh!

[Morthoron]

Oh, don't be so posh!

I'm sorry, I just can't help it. I am l33t.