Beorn

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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"?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

Other sources tell that they made their thrails eat these mushrooms and stuff and that they would then drink their urin in order to "Gå Berserker-gang" (walk berserker-walk). That is gross and therefor I like the stories about them doing it in a more spiritual way better. . .

But back to the topic. . .the problem with Beorn for me is that he has decendant who seem to get share of his powers and all that jazz, he seems to human like. He might have been a decndant of a Maia-Human thing or something of the sort, but I think that very thing that he dies before the war of the ring speaks for the argument that he him self was no maia.

May be a bit off topic, but berserkers used the fly agaric mushroom, amanitas muscaria as did many other cultures.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I think that the Berserkers like Vikings are unjustly branded as evil. They where not much more war like than the rest of Europe at this time. . .they where just slightly better and traveled.

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

The berserk thought that Grettir & the Farmer were stalling. He started to howl loudly & bite the edge of his shield. He put his shield in his mouth, spread his lips over the corner of it & acted like a savage. Grettir strode over to him & when he came alongside the berserk's horse he kicked the bottom of the shield up into his mouth so hard that his face ripped open & his jaws fell down to his chest. In a single action he grabbed the berserks helmet with his left hand & dashed him from his horse, & with his right hand he drew the short sword he was wearing & struck him on the neck, chopping off his head. When Snaekoll's companions saw this they fled in all directions. Grettir could not be bothered to chase them, for he could tell they were not at all brave.

or the swaggering but easily dispatched Berserkers in Hrolf Kraki's saga for instance, its clear that by the time of the Sagas they are simply thugs & trouble makers whose main role is to give the hero a bunch of bad guys to beat up.

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

That said, its possible that if the 'cult' did survive into Christian times they would have quite likely been an absolute bloody nuisance in peacetime - look at the problems caused by Grettir himself (or Turin). The last thing folk need when they're trying to live peacfully, or (in the case of Beleriand to keep heir heads down so as not to be noticed) is to have 'heroic warriors' swaggering around trying to start fights.

Hmm... that said indeed. Think of Robin Hood or George W. Bush in relation with this! People get along under a bad government but they get along... and then someone comes and says "Hey, I'm going to make you free with fighting the oppressors and thence putting you yourselves on to harms way as well as I make you active parties to this struggle I, the hero, have raised up!" and what follows? More hardship for everyone...

I admit that piling Robin Hood and Mr. Bush together isn't the smartest move (or the most politically correct - or morally the most maintainable ... or the most in-topic move either) but there is a structure of similarity there anyway. And I just couldn't resist this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Hmm... that said indeed. Think of Robin Hood or George W. Bush in relation with this! People get along under a bad government but they get along... and then someone comes and says "Hey, I'm going to make you free with fighting the oppressors and thence putting you yourselves on to harms way as well as I make you active parties to this struggle I, the hero, have raised up!" and what follows? More hardship for everyone...

There're few things more difficult to deal with than a warrior in peace-time. Grettir is a classic example of a man who slays monsters & trouble-makers & is in many ways an agent of civilisation. The problem comes when there are no monsters to be fought, because a warrior is still a warrior. Beorn may fit into the world of TH, but would he fit into the Fourth Age - what role for an Orc-slayer when there are no more Orcs? The Berserkers outlived their time & became a nuisance. I wonder if Beorn lived alone out of choice, or simply because he knew he was a man out of his time & place. Turin was in the same position, but simply couldn't accept it. The more I think about him the sadder Beorn seems.

[Nogrod]

Thanks davem for getting us back to the track... I was a bit unsure whether my point was reasonable in the first place but what is posted is posted.

But to follow your lead. Why do we speculate this much of a character Tolkien himself clearly abandoned in his later years? It's easy to me to see that he was not happy with Beorn (and his capabilities) and thence intentionally forgot him - left him with no mention or not building up anything with the shape-changer-beornings... Had he lived two hundred years he might have come back to Beorn again and tried to solve the problem of his generation or origins which he had brought to life in the Hobbit but it seems he never did it.

Someone more savvy might correct me on this one but that's my impression.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But to follow your lead. Why do we speculate this much of a character Tolkien himself clearly abandoned in his later years? It's easy to me to see that he was not happy with Beorn (and his capabilities) and thence intentionally forgot him - left him with no mention or not building up anything with the shape-changer-beornings... Had he lived two hundred years he might have come back to Beorn again and tried to solve the problem of his generation or origins which he had brought to life in the Hobbit but it seems he never did it..

I think Tolkien found himself stuck with a lot of things once he decided to link the sequel to TH into The Silmarillion. Some things he could work with, others he couldn't. He obviously had a free hand with TH, as it was written as entertainment for his children (& for himself of course). Once the sequel became part of the Legendarium the problems arose. It would have been interesting to see how the 'adult' re-write of TH would have dealt with Beorn, but apparently Tolkien only got a couple of chapters in (Part two of Rateliff's History of the Hobbit has been put back to the end of July/beginning of August apparently). Perhaps one reason he gave up on that project was the difficulty of assimilating characters like Beorn into the Legendarium proper. The thing that makes Tolkien's works so affecting & believable is that he could offer an explanation for the things in his secondary world, but I don't think there is an explanation for Beorn - like Tom he simply 'is'. We simply have to accept his existence in TH, just as we have to accept Tom in LotR. My feeling is that even if he'd lived to be five hundred Beorn would have remained inexplicable in terms of the laws of M-e.

Beorn is necessary in terms of TH, & couldn't be written out - neither could the three 'cockerney' Trolls, but the idea that they could ever have been made to work in a rewrite of TH in the style of LotR is laughable. Its odd how TH is actually closer to Norse myth than LotR - even the Trolls being turned to stone can be traced back to Grettir's Saga, where a Troll actually suffers that very fate:

According to Grettir the trollwoman plunged into the chasm when she received her wound but the people of Bardardal claim she turned to stone at daybreak while they were wrestling & died when he chopped off her arm - & is still standing there on the cliff, as a rock in the shape of a woman.

.

Another interesting point brought up in an essay on the similarities between Gandalf & Odin (by Marjorie Burns???) is the presence of ravens in TH at The Lonely Mountain, & their complete absence anywhere else in the Legendarium - ravens being the bird most strongly associated with Odin. And Gandalf (to my mind) is far more of the Odinic wanderer in TH than he is in LotR. TH is more purely 'northern' in mood & atmosphere - not to mention in the characters that appear - than LotR or The Sil.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

And much of this negative press comes from the Icelandic Sagas - written after Iceland bacame Christian. Its probably their strong connection with the cult of Odin that caused the reputation as thugs & troublemakers. Certainly if you look at the way Grettir dispatches the berserker:

A bit off topic: I suppose this is why there is tales of Harold's army being stoped at Stamford Bridge by a Besrker in Harald (III) Sigurdsson's army. . . .to connect this heathen king with thugs and so on.

sorry I shall stop now, it is just so darn interesting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

When in Middle Earth do men turn into bears? If it's some sort of magic, wouldn't the men of Numenor, the most advanced men, be able to do it? Wouldn't Gondor have an army of giant bear-men? Or more likely, wouldn't Sauron?

Beorn doesn't make sense as a man within the legendarium. No way. The only way I can fit him into the legendarium is to theorize that he is descended from a human who wedded an Ainu who specialized in all things bear related.

Why does he have to fit? Why this obsessive need to systematize everything? Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world), not an RPG system.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Why does he have to fit? Why this obsessive need to systematize everything? Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world), not an RPG system.

I think you'd really need to address that question to Tolkien himself. It seems to me that was his problem, & the reason we didn't get a completed Silmarillion (but see Rateliff: http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2007/06...marillion.html) - he was too concerned with explaining everything & providing a logical explanation - the whole 'Myths Transformed' farrago is confirmation of that. I think your point stands as far as TH is concerned. Beorn doesn't require explanation in the world of TH (Rateliff suggests he was in there as much because the young Tolkien's all loved bears as much as because Tolkien himself wanted to introduce an 'echo' of the Berserkers into his tale) but he does require an explanation in terms of the greater world of LotR & The Sil - simply because in that world things are explained - or Tolkien drives himself crazy trying to explain them: look at the knots he tied himself (& his readers) in in his attempts to account for Orcs.

In TH things pop up, whether cockerney Trolls, tra-la-la-lallying Elves, skin changers, 'gollums' with magic rings or maiden eating dragons. Its a fairy tale world & pretty much anything is thrown in without need of explanation - & we accept it all without question. LotR/The Sil doesn't work that way, & we approach it differently. Personally, I tend to exclude TH from the Legendarium & read it as a stand alone work, & I find I only have any difficulties when I try & make it fit with the the other works.

[the phantom]

Why does he have to fit?

Davem gave a great answer to this, but I'd like to say a bit more.

It is human nature to try and make sense of things. When you are presented with something new, you examine all the facts surrounding it and attempt to give it a place in your mind.

Don't you? (if not, then I'm worried about you)

When you try a new pie, you ask what is in it and how it was baked. And if the person tells you that they don't know, and that they merely placed the pan in the oven and the pie magically appeared, would you honestly be satisfied with that answer? Would you just stupidly say, "Oh, okay, I guess it's an enigma", or would you insist on a better explanation?

Tolkien was creating a world with mysteries and enigmas and unexplained phenomena (just like the real world)

Well, as D already detailed, Tolkien wasn't creating that kind of world. He liked to explain everything. And with good reason! Humans prefer things to be known. You are right that there exist mysteries and enigmas in this world, but surely you understand that existence does not equal acceptance. Mysteries and enigmas are not accepted in this world. When something unexplainable happens, teams of scientists are assigned to reveal the mystery, and experts everywhere come up with logic based theories to explain the mystery.

It is the same with Beorn. He doesn't make sense in Middle Earth with what we know about Middle Earth, and so he is a mystery. And so now we, the experts, need to come up with logic based theories to explain Beorn.

As I've said on other threads, just because a book can be found in the fantasy section does not mean any old silly thing can happen in it and that we must accept it.