Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendė
However there is something else to consider. Beorn after all is not a vicious man like a berserker. He reminds me of Gunnar in Njal's Saga - a gentle man who does not want to fight, but when roused is something of the Ultimate Fighter.
|
I'm not sure if the berserkers were vicious in the first place... just soldiers that got themself into a trance with some aids (mushrooms, alcohol or stuff like that) or just with some rituals. But anyhow Gunnar from Njall's saga is the very person that came into my mind as I hastily read through this thread. And knowing the prof's familiarity with the scandinavian legends it might have been a starting point - among the general idea of the berserkers.
But how does Beorn fit in with the Tolkien universe? That's a harder nut to crack. I kind of like this idea of "tombombadilism" (or him being a
Maia or whatever) but that is arguable. Surely he would have had notes on that in his later years if that would have been the case. So maybe an earlier creation he didn't wish to include in his later world but couldn't undo him as
the Hobbit had been published already?
In any case the silence about the beornings in general in the later works I find a bit troubling. Why did Tolkien bypass them if not for the reason that he disliked the ideas he had formed on them initially in his "children's book"?