[Dininziliel]

Child of the 7th Age:

And think how much our answer to this question influences our visual image of the characters!

This put me in mind of what's different at 20 than at 50 (besides . . . ) Somehow, it's not quite the big deal at 20 that it is at 50 to be going off into the great unknown of possible no return. At 20, I figured that's what I was supposed to do, else why be 20? At 50, there is the "Hmmm . . . wait a minute, here. Aren't I supposed to be all nestled & settled in my hard-won comfort having completed my quest begun in my 20's?" At 20, I was still so full of questions about okayness and rightness, and carrying invisible audiences around with me in my head. At 50, I have cheerfully waved goodbye to many of those impediments. You know, now that I think about it--if I'm really ready for an adventure/fated quest at 50, maybe I did something right after all! Maybe you live and survive the first 40 decades to be ready for your real quest!

I was reading one of the earlier letters Tolkien wrote to his son, Michael, about the relationship between the sexes. He says that one cannot truly be ready for love & marriage until later in life, and maybe not even then! He clearly thought age was a factor in handling life's serious matters.

Child again:

One of Frodo's dilemmas at the end of the book is that he has lost the "Shire" in a personal (and not just geographical) sense. He can not get back to being the person he was when he was younger.

Please forgive if I repeat an earlier post in this thread, but I think I read very recently in Letters of . . . . Tolkien saying something about innocence and being overmatched by circumstances. I love Lyta Underhill's (sp?) signature--"Frodo could not live with having failed an impossible test." It is a powerful caveat that has stuck in my mind. The relationship between innocence and the "cold, hard world," is a deep well that perhaps another thread could (has?) dip into.

Mr. Underhill:

Interesting side note: while checking out a little HoME for this post, I noticed that ‘Orlando’ and ‘Vigo’ [sic] were both considered as names for Hobbits in early versions of LotR. Hum The Twilight Zone theme with me...

LOL I actually caught myself humming . . . "do DO do do . . . "

Sleeping Beauty:

I don't think Frodo could have completed the task if he had been young and mischievous.

Again, I think Tolkien (or someone else in this thread) said much the same thing. [This is sloppy, slack posting--I should be looking up the letter or post to reference it; however, my eyes are buggy and getting very heavy.]

Guinivere:

For me personally, this "taking off at 50" is a funny coincidence, because I read the Hobbit and LotR for the first time at the age of 50!! Discovering Tolkien was quite a revelation

Wow. I almost wish . . . And I can't think of a better reason to engage the insanity of the cyber world than Tolkien.

Wonder what Tolkien would've said about computers & internet?

At any rate, I think we are all in agreement that Bilbo's & Frodo's age does make a difference. In Frodo's case, I think it carries more of an impact. At 50, you have a much better grasp of possiblities, limitations--you've been in the dark, stark parts of life a bit and much of the romanticism has gone the way of most other superfluous sentiment. The dreams that remain call more strongly; the knowledge of what it takes physically, mentally, and spiritually to sustain such an effort has been learned & earned the hard way. One is more tempered and prepared for both the known & unknown (I think that this was what Tolkien said.)

Maybe Tolkien made them 50 because he knew they'd never succeed otherwise--their mercy toward Gollum, Bilbo's relinquishing the Arkenstone, Frodo's commitment . . .