Hobbit2 - Chapter 03 - A Short Rest

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I am actually not sure what edition of The Hobbit this statement about Elrond belongs to)

All of them from the first printing and onward.

It is quite easy to read this passage from The Hobbit in that light, making "chief" the equivalent of "eldest."

It is not easy for me since the word chief does not mean the same as eldest, though often (but not always) the eldest living male of a clan would also be the chief. This was not the case with the Dúnedain of the North who had their own kings and later chiefs of which Elrond was not one, unless he was possibly an acting chief during the period between the death of Arathorn and Argorn’s assumption of the chieftainship. It was also not the case with the Dúnedain of the South who never, so far as we are told, considered asking Elrond to take over their kingship when the line of Anárion failed.

I don't think there's any need to make a case for Elrond being the interim chieftain of the Dúnedain to explain this passage however--"chief" does not only denote "chieftain" but also simply means "foremost," and I doubt that anyone would argue that Elrond was the foremost member of this "race," regardless of whatever formal status he had.

I would be quite willing to argue that Elrond at this time was the foremost member of the descendants of Lúthien then alive. I quite agree that there is no need to make Elrond into an interim chief. There is also no need for my entire post or your post. The word need does not fit here.

All of which is a lot of extracted thought from The Lord of the Rings on a fairly minor point in the text of The Hobbit, but it shows a compatibility between the texts--even if it was written before the The Lord of the Rings was ever conceived. And, if so, it demonstrates I guess the consistency of artistic vision that Tolkien possessed.

This compatibility of text only exists if one plays somewhat dubious games with the meaning of chief. In that case the text is only dubiously compatible.

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

But if you recall, from Melian (and Luthien hearting Beren---and their descendants via Numenor) there is, especially in the Dunedain and through them extending eventually through Men a trace of elvishness. Perhaps that is what is alluded to.

That is what I said (or thought I said, near enough).

When Tolkien originally wrote this sentence he had not yet, so far as can be told, invented Elros and his descendants. If one is taking The Lord of the Rings into account, Elrond was never the actual chief of any of the people descended from Elros, so far as Tolkien indicates, unless the reader assumes an interim chieftainship when Elrond had undertaken the position of foster-father to Aragorn who was the future chief of the Dúnedain of the North by heredity.

Or one might take chief to be used loosely to mean not the actual ruling chief but a person of great authority and power among the Dúnedain of the North.

Tolkien never indicates who was the actual chief of the Dúnedain of the North during Aragorn’s minority. The passage I cite from The Hobbit suggests it was Elrond, but no more than suggests it.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by jallanite

All of them from the first printing and onward.

Good to know--I have no resources before the 1st Edition.

It doesn't really add anything to the discussion, but I find it interesting, and for the sake of completeness, let me add the original draft:

Originally Posted by The History of the Hobbit I: "Rivendell"

The master of the house was an elf-friend - one of those people whose fathers came into the strange stories of the beginning of history and the wars of the Elves and goblins, and the brave men of North. There were still some people in those day [who were>] who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors, and Elrond the master of the house was one.

Mind you, even if this only pushes the use of the word "chief" forward to the polishing that created the 1st Edition, that still predates The Lord of the Rings and thus antedates the first conception of the Ranger Trotter, who was the placeholder that prefigured Aragorn and the Rangers of the North. Thus, as far as this passage goes, it is pretty much impossible to say that what it still means in the 3rd Edition (the last one Tolkien touched, in a post-LotR world) is the same as what it meant in the 1st Edition, before the LotR had been conceived.

Originally Posted by jallanite

It is not easy for me since the word chief does not mean the same as eldest, though often (but not always) the eldest living male of a clan would also be the chief.

Of course not--I am not claiming the two words are synonyms; only that they are being used in a way that suggests a contextual relationship.

Originally Posted by jallanite

This compatibility of text only exists if one plays somewhat dubious games with the meaning of chief. In that case the text is only dubiously compatible.

I will grant that if the sentence ran "...was the chief," my argument would be unassailably stronger than the actual text of "was their chief." In that respect, your preferred definition has the grammatical high ground. Nonetheless, "dubious" seems like an overly-strong condemnation of my interpretation. After all, Tolkien uses the word "Chieftain" himself--and uses it for the very formal position about which we are debating. To use "Chief" formally either invokes black-and-white westerns with "Red Indian" chiefs or else the incongruous image of Lotho Pimple, who was called the chief.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Or one might take chief to be used loosely to mean not the actual ruling chief but a person of great authority and power among the Dúnedain of the North.

Tolkien never indicates who was the actual chief of the Dúnedain of the North during Aragorn’s minority. The passage I cite from The Hobbit suggests it was Elrond, but no more than suggests it.

The first of these two options, "one of great authority and power," is what I have been arguing for. Aragorn himself was the actual (that is to say, de jure) Chieftain of the Dúnedain during his minority. During his majority, he was similarly incapable of ruling his people while on his great journeys south and east, but there is nothing said of who ruled in his stead then. It seems more likely to me that some analogue of Halbarad ruled then--and during Aragorn's minority. Of course, this Acting Chieftain must have had great respect for Elrond and may well have sought his advice--but Aragorn himself does that.

This passage in The Hobbit does, I agree, suggest that Elrond was a formal chief, but if we read it with a hermeneutic of consistency with The Lord of the Rings, the evidence--as I read it--is against any such formality. More than any other reason, I would argue that you can't equate the Dúnedain of the North with half-Elves, even though I make the connection that many of them, in fact, had dilute Elven blood. It is an informal group of people to whom Elrond is their chief--and thus this line seems to be slender evidence for him possessing a formal leadership over another, not-quite-contiguous, group.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Thus, as far as this passage goes, it is pretty much impossible to say that what it still means in the 3rd Edition (the last one Tolkien touched, in a post-LotR world) is the same as what it meant in the 1st Edition, before the LotR had been conceived.

See John D. Ratliff's The History of the Hobbit: Part One: Mr. Baggins. Beginning on page 121 Ratliff has a long discussion on Elrond before The Hobbit was published and shortly after. It is quite possible to show some of the differences between Tolkien’s conceptions before The Hobbit was published and when The Hobbit was first published.

Ratliff notes that Elrond was not even necessarily an immortal in those days and not considered an elf. Ratliff writes in part:

… and the very presence of Elrond himself, who is certainly not described as an elf (at the end of the chapter Elrond, the hobbit, the wizard, and the dwarves go outside ‘to see the elves’ dance and sing) and seems not to have been conceived of as an immortal or even particularly long-lived at this point, argues against a long gap in time between Gondolin’s fall and Mr. Baggins’ adventure. … By that scheme, Mr. Baggins’ unexpected party would have occurred no more than 14 years after the fall of Thangorodrim, which is clearly exceedingly improbable. These difficulties probably led to Tolkien’s deletion of the references to Beren and Lúthien’s adventure, which together with Elrond’s undefined status and nature enable Gondolin and its ruin to recede into the distant, legendary past.

Quoting all that Ratliff says on this matter would be overkill. You can look it up yourself.

Of course not--I am not claiming the two words are synonyms; only that they are being used in a way that suggests a contextual relationship.

I don’t understand what you mean by suggests a contextual relationship. That phrase is very, very vague.

I will grant that if the sentence ran "...was the chief," my argument would be unassailably stronger than the actual text of "was their chief." In that respect, your preferred definition has the grammatical high ground.

I disagree that the use of the over their would make any significant difference.

Nonetheless, "dubious" seems like an overly-strong condemnation of my interpretation.

I am not going to argue something when you use the word seems to push it.

To use "Chief" formally either invokes black-and-white westerns with "Red Indian" chiefs or else the incongruous image of Lotho Pimple, who was called the chief.

No it doesn’t. Tolkien uses the word chief of Elrond and I don’t know that anyone but yourself has made the associations that you are making. If by formally you mean dictionary usage, then see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chief or any other dictionary. Dictionary definitions are formal definitions. Find some differences between them that matter for this discussion and we can debate these true formal definitions.

The first of these two options, "one of great authority and power," is what I have been arguing for. Aragorn himself was the actual (that is to say, de jure) Chieftain of the Dúnedain during his minority. During his majority, he was similarly incapable of ruling his people while on his great journeys south and east, but there is nothing said of who ruled in his stead then. It seems more likely to me that some analogue of Halbarad ruled then--and during Aragorn's minority. Of course, this Acting Chieftain must have had great respect for Elrond and may well have sought his advice--but Aragorn himself does that.

Tolkien nowhere says anything about the matters of which you speak. That you must use the words seems more likely to me is an admission that you have no evidence.

My claim, such as it is, is only that it that it is possible that Elrond was interim chief, not that Elrond actually was interim chief.

This passage in The Hobbit does, I agree, suggest that Elrond was a formal chief, but if we read it with a hermeneutic of consistency with The Lord of the Rings, the evidence--as I read it--is against any such formality.

The phrase as I read it admits that other readings are possible. I have never claimed either that Elrond was provably a formal interim chief or that he was not.

More than any other reason, I would argue that you can't equate the Dúnedain of the North with half-Elves, even though I make the connection that many of them, in fact, had dilute Elven blood. It is an informal group of people to whom Elrond is their chief--and thus this line seems to be slender evidence for him possessing a formal leadership over another, not-quite-contiguous, group.

That is exactly what I claiming, that Tolkien’s statement is slender evidence. I am not claiming anything more. The phrase dubious evidence would work as well. Other possible explanations are also based on slender evidence or dubious evidence.

I never claimed that Elrond was an interim chief since Tolkien does not say and what Tolkien says goes. You appear to be claiming that Elrond could not have been an interim chief, but can provide no evidence.

I also claimed that possibly Elrond’s status as chief of “some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors” was a partial error on Bilbo’s part, the kind of explanation that Tolkien sometimes uses to cover similar problems.

I do not have any single explanation within The Lord of the Rings which clearly covers Tolkien’s statement:

In those days of our tale there were still some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors, and Elrond the master of the house was their chief.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Ratliff notes that Elrond was not even necessarily an immortal in those days and not considered an elf. Ratliff writes in part:

There is a note to Elrond's developement in the Annotated Hobbit as well (it deals with being "who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors" phrase):

Tolkien wrote to Christopher Bretherton in a letter of July, 16, 1964, "The passage in Ch. 3 relating him to the Half-elven of the mythology was a fortunate accident, due to the difficulty of constantly inventing good names for new characters, I gave him the name the name Elrond casually, but as this came from the mythology...I made him half-elven."

It appears Tolkien's first conception was he needed name that could fit the "some people who had both elves and heroes in the North for ancestors" description. Thus, he just chose Elrond, and the "fortunate accident" part is Elrond appears earlier in the mythology described as half-elfin, in 1926 "Sketch of the Mythology," which was published in The Shaping of Middle-earth:

"Their [Earendel and Elwing] son (Elrond) who is half-mortal and half-elfin, a child, was saved however by Maidros. When later the Elves return to the West, bound by his mortal half he elects to stay on earth. Through him the blood of Hurin (his great-uncle) and of the Elves is yet among Men, and is seen yet in valour and in beauty and in poetry."

I don’t understand what you mean by suggests a contextual relationship. That phrase is very, very vague.

I believe Form means that within the context of LOTR (particularly the Houses of Healing part he quoted), there is a clearly established relationship between Elrond, Aragorn, and the Dunedain. That is, Elrond's a figure of authority amongst the Dunedain. However, this does not have to be a formally recognized position. It could be, Elrond is a recognized figure of authority, a "foremost" person sought after by the Dunedain.

At least, that's how I read "contextual relationship" to mean, context in LOTR establishes a type of relationship between Elrond and Aragorn (and thus the Dunedain).

No it doesn’t. Tolkien uses the word chief of Elrond and I don’t know that anyone but yourself has made the associations that you are making. If by formally you mean dictionary usage, then see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chief or any other dictionary. Dictionary definitions are formal definitions. Find some differences between them that matter for this discussion and we can debate these true formal definitions.

The difference here is between "chieftain" and "chief."

Chieftain always refers to a leader of a clan/tribe. This is in fact the way Tolkien uses the word with the Dunedain. Chieftain of the Dunedain (or Chieftain of the North) is a formal position and title given to the heirs of Isildur. First it's the Kings of Arnor, then Kings of Arthedain. From Aranarth to Aragorn, the formal leader can not be called "king" or "prince" anymore for there is no more kingdom. The Dunedain are a de-populated group of survivors living in a wild land, thus Chieftain is most apt for the formal leader of the Dunedain remnant. And from the evidence given in the Appendices, Tolkien treats Chieftain as a formal position, used as a leadership title strictly referring to the heirs of Isildur. By law, Aragorn (no matter his age) is the next Chieftain after Arathorn II. Elrond, not being an heir of Isildur, could not take the title of Chieftain of the Dunedain, even on an interim basis (nor does Tolkien ever refer to Elrond by this title).

So, why refer to Elrond as " their chief?" Chief can be a shortened word for chieftain, but this is not always so. Historically, when chieftain is shortened to chief, it refers to the leader of Native American tribes. So, Form is correct in saying to use "chief" he would either associate the word to a Native American tribe, or to Lotho, who is informally called "the chief" when Saruman controls the Shire. Chief could easily refer to foremost, principal, main...as if one would say "chief city."

And in this way, I agree with Form, calling Elrond "chief" could be a courtesy title given to Elrond. Since he did in fact have an established relationship with Aragorn and the Dunedain, he would be a sought after person by them. As a courtesy, the casual "chief" (to mean foremost/principal/eldest) makes the most sense to me.

I never claimed that Elrond was an interim chief since Tolkien does not say and what Tolkien says goes. You appear to be claiming that Elrond could not have been an interim chief, but can provide no evidence.

Seems/suggests/appears is just the way Form discusses topics. Even when he disagrees, he likes reaching an understanding of other arguments being made. And even if Tolkien doesn't explicitly state something, that does not mean we can't reasonably assume it to be the case:

Originally Posted by [B

Form[/B]]It seems more likely to me that some analogue of Halbarad ruled then--and during Aragorn's minority. Of course, this Acting Chieftain must have had great respect for Elrond and may well have sought his advice--but Aragorn himself does that.

jallanite is correct that this is never explicitly stated. But this assumption seems more likely to me, than the assumption Elrond was the interim Chieftain of the Dunedain. For the fact, that when Tolkien wants to talk about the Chieftain of the Dunedain, he says Chieftain. And Chieftain of the Dunedain is a hereditary title for the heirs of Isildur as the leaders of the remaining Dunedain. I would go so far as to say Elrond could not hold this title or position (even on as an interim), because he is not a recognized heir of Isildur. The reference to Elrond as "their chief" is simply a courtesy title, as a foremost and important figure who had a relationship with the Dunedain.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Chief can be a shortened word for chieftain, but this is not always so. Historically, when chieftain is shortened to chief, it refers to the leader of Native American tribes. So, Form is correct in saying to use "chief" he would either associate the word to a Native American tribe, or to Lotho, who is informally called "the chief" when Saruman controls the Shire. Chief could easily refer to foremost, principal, main...as if one would say "chief city."

Matters appear to be more complicated. Chief is from Old French and originally meant simply ‘head’ and later came to be used to mean ‘head man’, ‘leader’. Chieftain is from Old French chevetain ‘captain’, ‘leader’. According to Sir Walter Scott’s novel Rob Roy, published in 1818, a Highland chieftain is the head of a branch of a clan but a chief is the head of a whole clan. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan_chief . Perhaps others here know more about this than I do.

And in this way, I agree with Form, calling Elrond "chief" could be a courtesy title given to Elrond. Since he did in fact have an established relationship with Aragorn and the Dunedain, he would be a sought after person by them. As a courtesy, the casual "chief" (to mean foremost/principal/eldest) makes the most sense to me.

Yes, indeed, it could be a courtesy title, or it might be explained otherwise. Tolkien doesn’t say, and without convincing evidence from other historical or literary works, that one explanation makes more sense to some people need not convince others. Evidence is what is needed.

Seems/suggests/appears is just the way Form discusses topics. Even when he disagrees, he likes reaching an understanding of other arguments being made. And even if Tolkien doesn't explicitly state something, that does not mean we can't reasonably assume it to be the case.

To assume anything is never reasonable.

I would go so far as to say Elrond could not hold this title or position (even on as an interim), because he is not a recognized heir of Isildur. The reference to Elrond as "their chief" is simply a courtesy title, as a foremost and important figure who had a relationship with the Dunedain.

Maybe so, and maybe not. Have you reason to support your assumption? If so, there is no need of the assumption. Neither you or I should expect that a personal belief unsupported by evidence should be accepted by others.

To me the problem is that a statement by Tolkien in The Hobbit does not fit well with other statements in The Lord of the Rings. Assuming that the works are to be looked on as coherent, can they be somehow reconciled? I provided two possible explanations. You have provided another.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by jallanite

To assume anything is never reasonable.

If that's your stance then we will just have to go on agreeing to disagree, because that is just leading around in circles. My opinion, will always be, the text (whether it be LOTR, The Hobbit, Silm...etc) is evidence, but not always is there a nifty and explicit statement. That is to say, at times, we have to interpret and make inferences (assumptions, theories, deductions, whatever you want to call it) about the text, in order to have discussions or form opinions on what it all means. If that is not reasonable to you, then we're at an impass.

In this case, Elrond being called chief in A Short Rest, correct me if any of these statements about your posts are inaccurate:

1) Elrond being called chief (of "some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors") is slender evidence of Elrond being an interim Chieftain during Aragorn's minority years. And you have not made any claim that this is the only explanation.

or

2) Bilbo didn't correctly distinguish between the Dunedain and Elrond and his chilren.

Now the way that I'm coming at this is...

With 1, it is slender evidence based on Elrond being called "their chief." And in fact, saying this reference to "chief" means Elrond could have been an interim Chieftain, is an assumption based on the text. In my opinion, 1 looks an unlikely option.

With 2, personally, saying a character mixed something up/recorded incorrectly at every moment of confusion, or conflict, is a cop out excuse. Obviously, anyone can disagree with me about this, but I don't like using the argument in #2 unless there is no other possible conclusion.

However, with 1 feeling unlikely to me, and 2 only being a general option when nothing else makes sense to me, what is another explanation? I believe this was the purpose of Form's posts, to use the context of Elrond's relationship with the Dunedain and offer another interpretation to why he's called "their chief."

I should be clear, that this is also my position, "chief" being an informal courtesy to highlight Elrond's relationship with the rangers. You are correct that there is no explicit statement for this interpration, but that does eqaute to having no evidence for my interpretation.

Matters appear to be more complicated. Chief is from Old French and originally meant simply ‘head’ and later came to be used to mean ‘head man’, ‘leader’. Chieftain is from Old French chevetain ‘captain’, ‘leader’. According to Sir Walter Scott’s novel Rob Roy, published in 1818, a Highland chieftain is the head of a branch of a clan but a chief is the head of a whole clan. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan_chief . Perhaps others here know more about this than I do.

It was really my mistake for bringing this part about chief and chieftains up, because I'm not someone who likes debating definitions. My point was to say that chief can mean the formal (or "legal" if you prefer) head of a clan, but it can also be used in the general sense of "foremost" or "leading." Someone who isn't an actual leader in a position of authority, but is rather a respected figure of authority.

Now, the evidence I speak of, mostly comes out of looking in the Appendix and interpretting the way Tolkien uses "Chieftain." Chieftain is used strictly as the formal head of the Dunedain, and it's only specified to the heirs of Isildur. When Arnor broke up, the heirs can no longer have the position "King of Arnor," thus we get to the King of Arthedain. Once the Kingdom of Arthedain is destroyed, the heirs of Isildur need a new formal title of leadership (since they are still the legal heads of the Dunedain), for that Tolkien comes up with Chieftain:

After Arvedui the North-kingdom ended, for the Dunedain were now few and al lthe peoples of Eriador diminished. Yet the line of kings was continued by the Chieftains of the Dunedain, of whom Aranarth son of Arvedui was the first.~Appendix A: Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur

And from the same section of the Appendix:

There were fourteen Chieftains, before the fifteenth and last was born, Aragorn II, who became again King of both Gondor and Arnor.

Chieftain is thus a hereditary position, for the purpose of continuing the line of Isildur. By Dunedain custom, when Aragorn is born he is the next Chieftain in line. This, to me, means Elrond can not hold the title of Chieftain, not even on an interim basis.

Now, what is Elrond's position in this period when Arathorn II dies and the next Chieftain, Aragorn is 2 years old (and during the Hobbit I believe he'd be about 10-11?).

Arahael his [Aranarth] son was fostered in Rivendell, and so were all the sons of the chieftains after him; and there also were kep the heirlooms of their house...~ibid

So, since Elrond can't be titled "Chieftain of the Dunedain", why is he referred to as their chief in The Hobbit? To me, this is evidence supporting "chief" in the casual meaning of the word, marking Elrond's importance with the Dunedain, while yet not being their official leader (Chieftain). Also, taking into account that he is a respected figure, with an established relationship amongst the Dunedain, is further evidence suggesting chief is being used as a courtesy title.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If that's your stance then we will just have to go on agreeing to disagree, because that is just leading around in circles. My opinion, will always be, the text (whether it be LOTR, The Hobbit, Silm...etc) is evidence, but not always is there a nifty and explicit statement. That is to say, at times, we have to interpret and make inferences (assumptions, theories, deductions, whatever you want to call it) about the text, in order to have discussions or form opinions on what it all means. If that is not reasonable to you, then we're at an impass.

Then we are at an impass. I try to read everything critically, but do not always succeed and do not know everything. An assumption is fine for giving a personal opinion, but not to convince anyone of anything.

You have convinced me from your evidence that Elrond being recognized informally as a chief by the Dúnedain is also a possible explanation. With no explicit evidence, that is a far as you can reasonably expect to go.

I should be clear, that this is also my position, "chief" being an informal courtesy to highlight Elrond's relationship with the rangers. You are correct that there is no explicit statement for this interpration, but that does eqaute to having no evidence for my interpretation.

It equates to something like slender evidence. It makes sense, but other explanations make sense.

In Scottish highland usage chief is used for the leader of a clan and chieftain for the leader of part of a clan. If one takes the half-elven as a clan, then Elrond would be chief of a clan which consists of his own children and the descendants of his brother Elros. The leader of the descendants of Elros in the North would be leader of a part of a clan and quite reasonably be called a Chieftain. Accordingly Elrond would be both Chief and Chieftain of his own part clan consisting of himself and his children and only Chief, but not Chieftain, of the Dúnedain of the North.

By this logic Elrond ought to be Chief of the Gondorians as well. But this logic was not followed in Gondor and probably was not followed in the North until the destruction of Arthedain when this clan structure was recognized by Aranarth who was the first Chieftain of the Rangers of the North with Elrond as Chief of his clan.

This argument considers that the number of generations between Elros and Aranarth was such that it was considered that almost all or all of the Dúnedain of the North were descended from Elros.

This is yet another logical explanation.

But I believe it no more or less than the other explanations because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence trumps everything.

Chieftain is thus a hereditary position, for the purpose of continuing the line of Isildur. By Dunedain custom, when Aragorn is born he is the next Chieftain in line. This, to me, means Elrond can not hold the title of Chieftain, not even on an interim basis.

To me the problem is that anything put forward only as meaning something to you is an admission that it is being put forward without evidence, and accordingly, at best, is only good fan fiction. And someone will point out that Elrond is not a Chieftain but a Chief, which in this case may, or may not, be equivalent to Lord Protector or to Regent.

What was the view of Estel (Aragorn) of the governance of the Rangers before he learned the truth about his birth and his hereditary position? Tolkien doesn’t tell and so information is not available.

[Boromir88]

I almost forgot to add some general things after reading the chapter a few days ago.

At first, I thought "wow these Elves seem uncharistically silly, with a snobbish attitude." Like my comments about the dwarves in Roast Mutton, the Elves in A Short Rest were jarring if compared to LOTR. But, relatively quickly, I remembered Gildor, who gives us a similar impression, poking fun at hobbits and wizards:

"But we have no need of other company, and hobbits are so dull," they laughed.~Three is Company

They might come off a bit too cheery, but their teasing of dwarves and laughter doesn't bother me as much when considering Gildor's company having a similar personality. Perhaps, Gildor serves as a transition from Elves who are leaving the troubles of Middle-earth and are thus meant to annoy us with their joking and rather dismissiveness of Frodo's danger. Then, in Rivendell, Elrond and others have stayed and while they are more serious, their kindness is displayed in a willingness to "fight the long defeat."

It's similar to this chapter in several ways. Bilbo and the dwarves overcome their trouble with the trolls and starvation by getting to Rivendell for necessary rest and recovery. The Elves (in general) come off as annoying snobs, who like to laugh and joke about other races. Yet, they still receive a minor (but important) help in deciphering Thror's map from Elrond.

Elrond's description is one of my favorite character descriptions in the book. Smaug is, without question, my favorite character in The Hobbit, but the description of Elrond is pure gold:

He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer.

I've often joked with other members Elrond would be the one most likely to take in an orc baby, raise the orc in Rivendell, and try to prove they can be redeemed. And I think this description, where he has notable qualities from each of the Middle-earth races is just...lovely.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Given the importance of Rivendell in the first movie, would it do to rush too quickly by it in TH movie?

I wonder if Jackson will do the moon letters and Thror's map bit here. I believe Hugo Weaving is a confirmed cast member, so presumably there will be scenes in Rivendell. I'm not sure what else they could do for this part other than the Thror's map discussion, and maybe Elrond giving some standard wise counsel about their journey ahead. I am interested in seeing how they portray Elrond in the films. In the LOTR movies he was too much of a grump for me, but maybe time-travelling back 60 years, will lighten Elrond's grouchiness?