Minor Works -- 1 - Farmer Giles of Ham

[Findegil]

In addition to that medieval stereotype we know that JRR Tolkien and his brother Hilary were afraid of the Miller and his son in Sarehole were they lived in their earlier childhood. And probably with some right, because we can imagine that they were catched trespassing on the property of the millers and any how a pond of a mill is fascinating and dangours for kids, so they seldom accept that. I think I have seen a picture of that Miller and his son standing in the yard of the mill in a book, probably the Tolkien Family Album or The Black and the Withe Ogre Country. And to be sure the named Withe Ogre is that Miller seen in the crocked mirror of a fantastic story written by jung Hilary Tolkien (sad I don't remember clearly who was suggested as being the Black Ogre, but he had the most beautiful flowers in his fields, so he might be a farmer).

And again we find a connection to The Hobbit: If you search for pictures of the Sarehole mill in Birmingham (yes its still there!) guess what it looks like => right: the mill in Hobbingen across the Water as painted by JRR Tolkien. Of course, not exactly but still: the red brick building with roof ridge parallel to the water, its sparse windows, and the high chimney.

Coming back for a moment to the red beard of Giles: Yes, it is part of his name, but that doesn't make it any less interesting, maybe even to the contrary since only exceptional characteristics will become part of your name. Tolkien does often speak about beards (the Dwarves and their wives, the Wizards, Theoden and even Círdan just to mention a view out of my head). But he does not often mention red hair, I don't think one of Dwarves in The Hobbit had red hair, so they come out with some strange colures like blue. And the 1 figure out of the legendarium I remember having a red beard is really exceptional in both having red hair and growing a beard early in his life: The father of Nerdanel, Feanor's wife.

Respectfully
Findegil

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You think Tolkien is hard on millers, read Chaucer!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Anyway, to move on:

What do folks think about another structural parallel to The Hobbit, the everyman hero obtaining a Great Equalizer? In Bilbo's case, it's a Ring of Invisibility; in Giles' case it's Tailbiter. Giles has pluck, common sense and a sort of well-there's-no-help-for-it courage, but most of all he has a sword which practically by itself can terrify a dragon of ancient and imperial lineage.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The acquisition of those objects is a matter of luck, isn't it? And Bilbo is said to have a good deal of luck, though it would not suffice without his courage.

I am always amused over the scholarly glossing over of lack of knowledge that the parson shows when examining the sword: "...some, ah, epigraphical signs..." "The characters are archaic and the language barbaric," said the parson, to gain time. It reminds me of the language of academia used in papers and lectures!

When Giles covers his "chain mail" with his cloak, I am reminded of Gandalf the Grey - who threatens to show himself uncloaked. Obviously there is a time for secrecy and a time for open battle!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well,

It must be admitted that Giles owed his rise in a large measure to luck, though he showed some wits in the use of it. Both the luck and the wits remained with him to the end of his days

Luck not only in Caudimordax itself, but also in the giant blundering into his fields, Chrysophylax advancing on Ham rather than some other place, that particular dragon being the first one the cavalcade of knights blundered into... a whole lotta luck. But we can't deny the wits as well. Opportunity knocked, and Giles opened.

Then again, how best to describe Bilbo's career except as "luck and wits"?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There are numerous contrasts between the knights, whose task it is to protect the kingdom, and Giles. One of them is the matter of protocol - the knights need "official" notice and don't act immediately even then. The "professional" clothing is another - and it provides no protection when it comes to the actual fight with the dragon.

One that stuck out to me upon this rereading is that of fairness. Chrysophylax accuses Giles of unfair treatment because he didn't announce his name and his intention, with a formal challenge. Is the dragon expecting fairness from others while attacking the countryside in an unfair manner himself? It's typical of bullies to be annoyed when another bully stands up to them.

But later Giles expects the dragon to act in fairness when he waits for him to pay up as agreed, and Chrysophylax does not.

[Thinlómien]

Very interesting and enlightening miller discussion, I must say!

So I don't know how far everyone else is but I read (spoiler alert ) until Chrysophylax leaves the village after making his bargain. I like how this dragon story subverts quite a lot of the traditional elements, such as the dragon suddenly being a coward willing to bargain with his treasure to save his life (even if he doesn't intend to keep the bargain). I was also very amused by the mental image of Farmer Giles chasing the fleeing dragon on horseback for miles on end - not very dignified. Even though, of course, the imagery is familiar from for example the Arthurian legendarium and Pellinore chasing his beast, but the way Tolkien writes it underlines the comical side of a man on horseback chasing a formidable monster like that.

The most interesting detail in this part for me, however, was the court's tradition of eating dragons??? I don't remember reading any other story where dragons would be hunted for food. They're usually hunted because they threaten the kingdom and/or have treasure and/or make coveted trophies. Hunting a dragon and eating it seems rather original.

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure which minor works thread to post this, but I figure I'll start here.

The Preamble: I heard an intriguing paper this morning on "Pardoning Saruman". It used medieval definitions and original research using Tolkien's drafts and manuscripts. It examined the nature of "queer". It was a very well argued, intelligent paper. So that led me off to look for more work from the presenter, Christopher Vacarro.

He has edited a book called "Tolkien and Alterity" which examines Tolkien's treatment of the "Other", with a positive conclusion for Tolkien's acceptance of the Other. I haven't read it, but I noted a chapter which hit on all the minor works. Maybe someone has read it?

The point to my post: Stephen Yandell, "Cruising Fairy: Queer Desire in Giles, Niggles and Smith". I have no idea how good it is, but if Vacarro edited it, I suspect it is worth at least a look-see.

[Bêthberry]

I"ve found a review of "Tolkien and Alterity" which provides some explanation of the paper on Tolkien's minor characters, Giles, Niggle, and Smith. I'll provide a quotation here for those interested in examining these characters from an outsider or "Other" perspective.

The third essay in this Part, Stephen Yandell’s “Cruising Faery: Queer Desire in Giles, Niggle, and Smith”(149-79) argues that Giles, Niggle and Smith, heroes of Tolkien’s shorterworks, “embody a range of non-straight positions while negotiating theiroutsider status within society”(152). The themes of marginalized individuals, mainstream conformity, and hidden lives recur in theseworks; the autobiographical aspect of Farmer Giles and Smith also becomes relevant in that professionally Tolkien explored “the margins of his already marginalized fields of medieval literature and language”(153), while the Middle-earth works were “a queer project, consistently challenging ‘segregation of the Other’”(154). Yandell points to the queering device of the manuscript in Farmer Gilesand Giles’s “negotiat[ing of]a range of shifting boundaries”(157); how Niggle’s “queerness is brandished as a strength”(163) and the male companionship (reminiscent of the Inklings) that he needs for his creative work; Smith’s “closeted class of faeries”(166) and how “narrativizing the desires of Faery [is] ‘faerying’ the text” (a wonderful term; 164). All this,he argues, show these characters’ trips to their respective Otherworlds as a form of “cruising”: “pursu[ing] forms of pleasure tied to non-straight character traits, follow[ing] desires that grow from internal conflicts, and respond[ing] actively to the ways in which their desires place them at odds with mainstream society”(169). Yandell’s paper is another type of exploration in how the symbolically sexualized aspects of characters and narratives can be used to detect the queerness, the alterity of the fantastic, and is a very welcome addition to the corpus of works dealing with Tolkien’s shorter fiction.

Some very interesting things to say about the protagonists of the minor works!

I might also point out that for many of these papers, "queer" is not necessarily a sexual status.

Kisor’s survey on “Queer Tolkien”emphasizes that queer need not be understood in terms of sexuality (although it can), but can also cover any kind of emphatic “difference.”The articles she includes provide various examples of these usages, but perhaps the most important point is the mention of Tison Pugh’s Queering Medieval Genres(26-7): Pugh’s contention that the queer has a “propensity . . . to subvert genre expectations” and “to destabilize narrative”(26) seem particularly applicable to Tolkien’s fictitious genres, which mix and interact with each other, thus not only “queering” the text by their “medievalness,”but even within that, by their use of difference to include in the fiction the interactions of those genres as themselves frustrating expectations.

The collection of essays is a celebration of Jane Chance's contributions to Tolkien Studies.

If anyone is interested in the review, it can be found here: https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewco...olkienresearch