A Most Unusual Dwarf

[littlemanpoet]

The most that can be said for the dwarves is this: they intended to pay Bilbo really handsomely for his services; they had brought him to do a nasty job for them, and they did not mind the poor little fellow doing it if he would; but they would all have done their best to get him out of trouble, if he got into it, as they did in the case of the trolls at the beginning of their adventures before they had any particular reaons for being grateful to him. There it is: dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.

The Hobbit, page 225 (1966 leatherbound edition)

About Gimli:

Gimli is a most unusual dwarf, given the quote above.

Do you think that he starts out, in Rivendell, better than this description?

Or does he become a better Dwarf through his experiences?

If he changed in LotR, what were the changes? When?

Have fun.

[mormegil]

I have always felt that Tolkien gave different traits to some of the races in The Hobbit than he gave in the other books. I don't have my book with me but there is the part in The Hobbit where the company enters Rivendell and the Elves sing those fairly nonsensical songs to the dwarves and company, yet this type of behavior is not demonstrated elsewhere that I can recollect and thus I always felt that The Hobbit is not the best predictor of a race's true character?

Anybody agree/disagree? My opinion is not nearly set in stone on this and I would like other opinions as well to help see what I've missed.

[Boromir88]

I tend to agree with you Mormegil. The Hobbit started out as a bedtime story, LOTR is in more depthful thinking with deeper meanings. There is a thread somewhere around here, I'll try to find it, where davem comments that Tolkien tried to go back and fix The Hobbit, because it created too many problems with his other books. He felt the characteristics between people/races were too dramatic, for instance, he wanted to change Gandalf's character in The Hobbit, because he felt like it didn't fit well with his character presented in LOTR.

I don't think one could compare The Hobbit, and LOTR, because they are just written for two different audiences. As good as The Hobbit is, it was a bed time story to his kids. That's why we get the "shifts/changes" in character from one to the next. I read The Hobbit as an entertaining book, but I don't think you could compare a race/person's actions/characteristics from The Hobbit to LOTR, since they are just different mediums.

However, even if we are to forget these differences, I would still disagree with you lmp. I believe there is some mentioning of Thorin's party, and their ancestors as "owing" Bilbo A LOT, for all that he did. I take it more as Gimli is such a committed member, and travels with Frodo for as long as he can, because they owed Bilbo so much, and to repay him Gimli commits himself to Bilbo's heir.

[Imladris]

Though I do tend to agree with Boromir and mormegil, I would like to say that Gimli probably did mature and "become a better dwarf" (alas, I view that he was one of the secondary characters neglected by Tolkien) during the journeys of the broken Fellowship. People just aren't born heroes...

However, even if we are to forget these differences, I would still disagree with you lmp. I believe there is some mentioning of Thorin's party, and their ancestors as "owing" Bilbo A LOT, for all that he did. I take it more as Gimli is such a committed member, and travels with Frodo for as long as he can, because they owed Bilbo so much, and to repay him Gimli commits himself to Bilbo's heir.

I disagree here....Gimli had many chances to turn back...especially when the Fellowship broke up. Surely more than the fact that they owed Bilbo a lot kept him going with Aragorn and Co. after the breaking.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Well, though, Imladris , to be fare, it was Gimli who went on about "faithless is he who turns aside before the task is done", and his decision seemed set in stone, and even after the loss of Gandalf, Galadriel likely was inspiration for him to continue, and of course, his dislike for Legolas evaporated and was replaced by friendship and commaraderie, and Aragorn's staunch, amazing tenacity and kindness won him over ... Aragorn won over everybody ... even Boromir. Aragorn befriended those two so well, they were willing to go to war with him, and like Legolas later mentioned ... if they returned home they'd find war there too, so it wasn't a big deal where in the West they were fighting in the war.

And ALSO, Boromir's death cemented the Three Hunter's resolve, (mainly Aragorn's, but Legolas and Gimli didn't go unaffected), and where would Gimli have gone? He would have turned north and toiled in the Wilderland by himself.

Plus, Gimli, like the other two, was somewhat indebted to rescuing Merry and Pippin, who were captured on his watch, and who were his friends.

So, Gimli didn't even get a chance to act all petty and dwarfish. Dwarvish tendencies showed through all over, pointing out rocks and stonework, smithcraft and that sort, being a little cocky, a little proud, but a generally decent fellow.

I'd say his growth was there. He was just the "Son of Gloin" but he had his own key moments. Balin's Tomb ... Durin's Bane (it affected everyone) ... Galadriel ... Amon Hen ... Eomer ... Helm's Deep ... and Flotsam & Jetsam stand out for me. Also, in Minas Tirith when he and Legolas recount the Paths of the Dead ... they really come across in this great symbiotic friendship ... almost like Merry and Pippin's. Not bad development all in all, for this uncharacteristically heroic dwarf's character.

[littlemanpoet]

Yes, you make a valid point that the tone of the two works is so different that comparisons of TH to LotR are tricky at best.

Still, there's another Dwarf worth consideration by way of comparison, which is Mîm, from the Sil. If anything, the tone of the Sil is even more dire than that of LotR, especially in the tale of Turin Turambar! What kind of character does Mîm turn out to have? It has been a long time since I read this, but just scanning based on the index in the short time I have right now (Sil pp. 202-206), Mîm was a traitor and a liar, and a coward. Granted, he grieved for his sons, and had cause for redress of wrongs, but he betrayed good men to orcs. Yes, he did it to save his life, but he still did it.

The Hobbit is loaded with references back to the legends in the Sil. So here we have a description of Dwarven character which I think applies to most Dwarves, whether in the Sil, TH, or LotR. Which is why Gimli stands out as unusual. So there's my defense of this definition. Any takers as to the original questions?

[Bêthberry]

littlemanpoet,

I have little time now to peruse the context of your quotation from The Hobbit, but something did strike me as I read it here, so I throw this idea out for consideration.

The quotation seems to me to partake very strongly of the kind of humour in TH and also, more tellingly, of the kinds of dwarves found in traditional folk tales.

I wonder if the differences can be explored through considering this idea: that in TH Tolkien was working particularly with the characteristics of dwarves from old mythologies (which might also pertain to Mîm, but I would want to reread his story closer before I completely subscribed to this idea) but that in LotR he was striving to broaden those characteristics along the lines of (for want of a better word) realism, just as he attempted to develope the idea of elves and give them a fuller psychology. Part of the nature of Tolkien's writing to show a progression of ideas, development. And I hope you understand that I don't mean realism as opposed to fairie here.

And, no, I won't conclude with that overused food metaphor. How about a sip of wine to stimulate discussion?

[littlemanpoet]

Fair enough, Bethberry. I await your stimulating erudition on this matter.

That said, I hope that someone will please consider the questions I posed above, of Gimli's development within the story of LotR, which is certainly in keeping with the realism Bethberry speaks of?

[Aiwendil]

The quote from The Hobbit got me thinking about the different ways Dwarves are portrayed throughout Tolkien's works. If we take an overview, I don't think that we find the paucity of heroic Dwarves that The Hobbit suggests. It's true that Mim is not a particularly admirable figure. Nor are the Dwarves of Nogrod who quarrel with Thingol, particularly their lord (Naugladur). But the Dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost were quite heroic on several occasions, particularly in the First and Fifth Battles of Beleriand. Azaghal's valor there may be set against Naugladur's acts.

But the truth is that Tolkien's conception of the Dwarves changed quite significantly over the course of the development of the Legendarium. In the Book of Lost Tales, they appear only in the story of their quarrel with Thingol and in the person of Mim; they are said to have great traffic with both the Noldoli and the Orcs and soldiers of Melko. In the Quenta Noldorinwa of 1930 it is said that "they are not friend of Valar or of Eldar or of Men, nor do they serve Morgoth; though they are in many things more like his people" and that the Feanorians "made war" upon them. This passage was later softened so that the Feanorians instead "had converse with them", and the statement that they were "more like" the people of Melko was removed. In the Quenta Noldorinwa the heroism of the Dwarves at the Nirnaeth is entirely absent; the Dwarves "went not themselves to war. 'For we do not know the rights of this quarrel,' they said, 'and we are friends of neither side - until it hath the mastery.'" This rather cold and calculating account was essentially retained in the 1937 Quenta Silmarillion.

The view of Dwarves immediately prior to the writing of The Hobbit, then, was not very complimentary at all. In fact, their portrayal in The Hobbit, even including the quote given by littlemanpoet, is significantly more positive than anything written about them previously.

Later ("long after", CRT guesses), a note was put against the QS passage that portrayed the Dwarves as opportunistic with regard to the Nirnaeth: "Not true of Dwarvish attitude". This, and the introduction of Azaghal that followed from it, seem to be a clear indication that Tolkien's ideas about the Dwarves had changed. Even Mim is portrayed far more sympathetically in the Narn than in the Book of Lost Tales.

So I think that the harsh statement found in The Hobbit can be seen as a vestige of the old conception of the Dwarves; by the time of LotR, the view had changed so that a noble Dwarf like Gimli was not all that astonishing.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I am a great fan of the character of Gimli in the book, and would very much like to join in this discussion. However, it will have to wait a bit, as I'm busy preparing for the Barrow-Downs birthday party and don't have the necessary time to research for an answer to your question, LMP. Rest assured - I'll be back!

[mormegil]

Well in consideration of Gimli independent of any other dwarf, yes he grew immensely in the LoTR as did all others who were a part of it, with the possible exception of Boromir and Denethor. That's what this kind of adventure/trial will do; it will either cause you to grow and develop or to fail. By far one of the greatest things Gimli did was help mend the rift between elves and dwarves that was apparent at the time. So, yes Gimli rose above what the conception is of most dwarves.

I do have a bit to say about Mim. I don't agree that Mim is a good character to base behavioral norms for dwarves on. Mim is a petty dwarf and from my understanding, petty dwarves are different than the great dwarven civilizations that we know and are discussing (i.e. Durin's folk)

[eowyntje]

I don't have a lot of knowledge of HoME and other writings mentioning the Dwarfs, but looking at the Lotr itself, I'd say it is very likely that Gimli was no ordinary dwarf, for the simple reason that all members o the fellowship were different from their own race in a way.
All 4 the hobbits were more adventurous then normal hobbits, Aragorn is nothing like normal humans, Boromir represents the humans weak side, but is nothing like the other humans describred in Lotr. Gandalf turns out to be no ordinary wizard, and as for legolas, he's quite normal in the beginning but changes when he befriends with a dwarf.
It is veyr likely that Tolkien made Gimli different form his race, more brave for example, because all the members of the fellowship are different from their race and they were the poeple he liked to write about. None of his characters were completely like the discription of their race, they all had their own traits and were unique creatures, and I think that goes for gimli too.

[Lobelia]

Originally Posted by eowyntje

...looking at the Lotr itself, I'd say it is very likely that Gimli was no ordinary dwarf, for the simple reason that all members o the fellowship were different from their own race in a way.
All 4 the hobbits were more adventurous then normal hobbits, Aragorn is nothing like normal humans, Boromir represents the humans weak side, but is nothing like the other humans describred in Lotr. Gandalf turns out to be no ordinary wizard, and as for legolas, he's quite normal in the beginning but changes when he befriends with a dwarf.

Nice thought, very true - they were all different from other members of their races - mind you, I don't think there were any "ordinary" wizards! I think that any growth on Gimli's part is posible because he was, from the beginning, very unlike the dwarves in TH. Gloin at Rivendell had grown from the Gloin in TH. And more - the dwarves who sent Sauron's representative packing were very brave and not at all greedy for gold. I think of dwarves in general as brave and feisty like Gimli the orc-killer! I suspect the ones in the HOME books are more like the ones in Norse myth and not to be compared with our lovely Gimli.

[drigel]

I think the nature of the mission for the 9 walkers was such that it placed Gimli the dwarf in a most unusual position. Here at the onset, he was not just a representative of his kingdom, but a representative of his entire race. I see him at the beginning seeing himself as almost the appointed ambassador to the United Nations, and the stakes are such that if he fails, then all dwarves would fall one by one, along with the rest of the free peoples. A highly monumental task that didnt include finding and procuring gold / wealth for himself, his family, or his lord.

I also see the character developing with the authors view of dwarves all along LOTR, especially in the relationship with Legolas. The early works show a more raw approach to dwarves, but perhaps that is congruent. That was an earlier time in ME, where relationships with elves and men being rougher and the blood in those dwarvish veins running hotter. Its a nice way to tap into those earlier times by using the bonding of Gimli and Legolas to regain a trust that was lost millenia ago...

[Nimrodel_9]

I've always liked to think that the hobbits' cheeriness kind of rubbed off on him.

[Kuruharan]

It is important to remember that there is a range of behavior for all the different races in Arda. There is a general ethos that sets the tone for the nature of a race, but I think that Tolkien intended us to understand that everyone would enact a wide range of behavior much like people in the real world. (Obviously, orcs are going to be a little bit more type cast than some...)

I disagree here....Gimli had many chances to turn back...especially when the Fellowship broke up. Surely more than the fact that they owed Bilbo a lot kept him going with Aragorn and Co. after the breaking.

While I agree that more than debt to Bilbo contributed to Gimli's actions, I think it is also important not to underestimate the extremely serious view that dwarves took of debts, both those owed to themselves and those they owed to others. Bilbo had done nothing less than restore a kingdom to Gimli's people. It would be hard to put a limit on the repayment of something like that.

I think this whole notion of the importance of honoring agreements and debts is highlighted by the situation in lmp's quote. The dwarves had an agreement with Bilbo and they expected him to fulfill his part of it. This is a rather businessish type of ethos but it is not inherently bad (although it may be uncomfortable for people like Bilbo who find themselves contractually obligated into awkward situations). I think by and large if you got a dwarf to agree to something you could expect them to do it.

And, I can hear the wheels in lmp's brain spinning right now, so before he says this, let me.

"But what about the way that Thorin tried to cheat Bilbo of his share of the treasure?"

Yes, well, that is a difficult situation. I'm not entirely sure that Thorin was quite right in the head at that moment, but aside from that...you have to admit that he had some serious grounds for complaint regarding Bilbo's behavior. While the contract in question did not specify the Arkenstone as a reserved article, Thorin would probably plead that even so it would be beyond the bounds to deal with enemies in arms the way that Bilbo did. There was probably enough blame to go around for that mess. We would undoubtedly need a loyer or two to untangle it.

[Thinlómien]

in The Hobbit where the company enters Rivendell and the Elves sing those fairly nonsensical songs to the dwarves and company, yet this type of behavior is not demonstrated elsewhere that I can recollect and thus I always felt that The Hobbit is not the best predictor of a race's true character?

True. But doesn't Sam say something in Rivendell that: "some elves are as happy as children" (while some he describes as "kings")?

And someone (I can't find it anymore, so I don't remember, who it was) said that all characters grow but Boromir and Denethor. I disagree about Boromir. He won himself and died honorably. And he grew to accept the king.

Nice discussion btw, keep going, I would like to hear more...

[bilbo_baggins]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

It is important to remember that there is a range of behavior for all the different races in Arda. There is a general ethos that sets the tone for the nature of a race, but I think that Tolkien intended us to understand that everyone would enact a wide range of behavior much like people in the real world.

Of course, taken how others of Gimli's race have set precedents, Gimli is an obvious softy. Way out there on the extreme end of dwarven behaviour given how he acts in regards to Legolas in RoTK and Galadriel in FoTR. Would a hardened Dwarf-lord act like this? Or is Gimli only showing that inner side we don't see too often in Dwarves? Perhaps they just need to be loved...

But overall Gimli is a lot different from any other Dwarven character you can find, only closely mimicked by the touching deathbed scene of Thorin. Maybe if Tolkien had 'finished' his Silm, we would have had a better picture of dwarves.

Originally Posted by drigel

...and the stakes are such that if he fails, then all dwarves would fall one by one, along with the rest of the free peoples. A highly monumental task that didnt include finding and procuring gold / wealth for himself, his family, or his lord.

Yes, but in character development wouldn't such a monumental task lead to a degenerative character development? Even if he is a Dwarf, having such a grave responsibility makes people (maybe dwarves too) a bit more serious and cautious. It certainly doesn't soften his heart and help to make friends with an Elf and four Hobbits.

That is all I can draw out of my mind right now.

bilbo

[Kuruharan]

But overall Gimli is a lot different from any other Dwarven character you can find

I don't know about this. I think you are forgetting Balin, Dori, Fili, Kili...

Hmmm, as a matter of fact, the only dwarves that we have developed personalities for (except for maybe Gimli's father Gloin, who has one scene and a bicker later on) really don't seem like bad folk at all.

On the whole, I think I probably disagree with lmp's premise to a certain extent. I don't think Gimli was so very unique.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I've been pondering the nature of Dwarvish character in the light of their creation story. I must admit, there's a strange aftertaste in it for me - it sounds like they were Eru's stepchildren, misshapen as far as his original planning was concerned. I know the Silmarillion/Ainulindalë is Elven history, and their own legends may be different, but do you suppose that they were ever told (by some grumpy, malicious, or drunk Elf, perhaps) that they weren't planned?

How would that shape their outlook on life? Would that account for their desire to collect wealth, perhaps as a substitute for self-worth feelings? Would they have developed a suspicious attitude toward other races for that reason? Or would they have myths that postulated their being special, perhaps bonding particularly with Aulë as their maker?

I'm not sure how to fit Gimli's character into these thoughts, which are rather nebulous and therefore slightly rambling...

[davem]

I've referred to this post of Squatter's before a couple of times, because it has always stuck in my mind. Its from the 'Psychological depth in Tolkien's Characters' thread. The relevant passage is:

Even with Legolas and Gimli, presented by some as 'paper-thin' and a poor substitute for the Odd Couple, I think that it requires a considerably insensitive reading of their scenes to come to that conclusion. Yes, their relationship with one another is a simple friendship, but it serves its narrative purpose without interfering with the plot. Quite a large part of that purpose was, in my opinion, to demonstrate that if we will only open our minds a little the rewards may be immmense. Of course it is a minor plot-line, with much less significance than Frodo, Sam and Gollum's journey or the fall of Saruman and Denethor; but though it is minor, and given the detail appropriate to a minor part of the story, I feel that to describe the characters themselves as 'paper-thin' is again to overlook subtleties of expression in the text.

Legolas and Gimli are not closely-drawn characters, but it is still possible to infer without external reference their thoughts, their motivations and their emotions. Gimli particularly is inclined to wear his heart on his sleeve, as we see when the Fellowship discuss the road ahead in Hollin:

Look at Gimli's reaction to seeing this place that resonates so deeply with the dreams of his people. He has seen the peaks 'once in waking life': he could as easily say 'Only once have I seen them' and leave it at that, but he goes on to imply that here is something that he has seen in his dreams a thousand times. This emotional reaction is typical of him. He repeats it in Lothlórien in his scenes with Galadriel, and we see it again when he has his first glimpse of the Glittering Caves. His conversation with Legolas as they leave Lothlórien reveals depths to each character that are not admitted by the 'paper-thin' argument:
Quote:

Is this the conversation of two characters without depth? It takes little imagination to see in Legolas' words the pity of the Elves' relations with other races. The mortals move on and leave, but the Elves are trapped within the world, unchanging and unable to follow. The most beautiful of their creations are destroyed, and they live to see most triumph turn back to disaster. Legolas speaks with the voice of experience. He has had many years to learn that we cannot hold on to the world; but Gimli is feeling for the first time the pain that the Elves feel at the passing away of beautiful things: a pain that they live with daily, and must overcome in bringing about the fall of Sauron. Even for one whose memory is like waking life, memory is not enough, and it is telling that Legolas never claims that it is. What he says is that an unstained memory is a great gift, and he has already implied that memory is what everything must eventually become. Who among the Fellowship is so well-placed as he to know this? This is a conversation about very profound thoughts, and if the characters are talking about them, they must also be thinking them. They might be talking about Lórien on the surface, but on a deeper level they are talking about the very relationship between experience and memory. This seems to indicate as well as anything that there is more to Gimli than a solid Dwarven miner and more to Legolas than the woodland prince. It may not come out often, but it is there; and we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

[Kuruharan]

I know the Silmarillion/Ainulindalë is Elven history, and their own legends may be different, but do you suppose that they were ever told (by some grumpy, malicious, or drunk Elf, perhaps) that they weren't planned?

How would that shape their outlook on life? Would that account for their desire to collect wealth, perhaps as a substitute for self-worth feelings? Would they have developed a suspicious attitude toward other races for that reason? Or would they have myths that postulated their being special, perhaps bonding particularly with Aulë as their maker?

The answer to the first question is probably yes. The Elves are very insecure and
they feel the need to constantly reinforce their shaky (and ill-founded) feelings of superiority.

On a more serious note, I doubt that any amount of Elven legends would change how the dwarves viewed themselves. They'd had thousands of years (or the equivalent of years of the sun) to develop their view of the world and their place in it. Aule evidently gave some instruction to the original dwarves, although we don't know what that would have been aside from their language and telling them of their ultimate fate.

However, the possessive nature of the dwarves does seem to be at odds with the non-possessive nature of Aule.

[littlemanpoet]

Even if The Hobbit is not considered as authoritative as LotR on Dwarves and other aspects of Middle Earth (and I'm not saying I agree with that), there is still a lot in LotR that corroborates my first post quote from TH about Gimli and Dwarves in general. This is especially the case in the Lórien chapters.

'A dwarf!' said Haldir. 'That is not well. We have not had dealings with the Dwarves since the Dark Days. They are not permitted in our land. I cannot allow him to pass.'

'And what gift would a Dwarf ask of the Elves? said Galadriel, turning to Gimli.

'None, Lady,' answered Gimli. 'It is enough for me to have seen the Lady of the Galadrim, and to have heard her gentle words.'

'Hear all ye Elves!' she cried to those about her. 'Let none say again that Dwarves are grasping and ungracious! Yet surely, Gimli son of Glóin, you desire something that I could give? Name it, I bid you! You shall not be the only guest without a gift.'

'There is nothing, Lady Galadriel,' said Gimli, bowing low and stammering. 'Nothing, unless it might be -- unless it is permitted to ask, nay, to name a single strand of your hair, which surpasses the gold of the earth as the stars surpass the gems of the mine. I do not ask for such a gift. But you commanded me to name my desire.'

The Elves stirred and murmured with astonishment, and Celeborn gazed at the Dwarf in wonder, but the Lady smiled. 'It is said that the skill of the Dwarves is in their hands rather than in their tongues,' she said; 'yet that is not true of Gimli. For none have ever made to me a request so bold and yet so courteous. And how shall I refuse, since I commanded him to speak?

....

'These words shall go with the gift,' she said. ... 'I say to you, Gimli son of Glóin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion.'

Here we have both the enmity held by Elves against Dwarves, and the singularity of Gimli. Perhaps any dwarf would have behave as well under the benevolence of Galadriel? I don't think so. This Dwarf was the son of Glóin, one of the company who had the friendship of the Wizard and the Hobbit, who had learned valuable life lessons through his part of the adventure of recapturing the Lonely Mountain; it is reasonable to suppose that he passed his wisdom and good heartedness onto his son Gimli.

[Kuruharan]

One must remember the source of these musings. I'm not sure I'd take the airy ramblings of Elves to be particularly authoritative so far as Dwarves are concerned.

One also has to remember that probably the most vivid memory that Celeborn and Galadriel possess of Dwarves is their aggressive effort to reduce the Elven infestation of Menegroth. An experience such as this is bound to color one's opinions. Their subjects will likely follow their lead.

Perhaps any dwarf would have behave as well under the benevolence of Galadriel? I don't think so.

Perhaps not. However, I hardly think that just saying this proves much about Dwarven character in general. As I pointed out earlier, the Dwarves whose personalities are developed beyond just a sketch seem to be pretty nice folk.

This Dwarf was the son of Glóin, one of the company who had the friendship of the Wizard and the Hobbit, who had learned valuable life lessons through his part of the adventure of recapturing the Lonely Mountain; it is reasonable to suppose that he passed his wisdom and good heartedness onto his son Gimli.

Maybe. On the other hand, Gimli was 61-62 at that time. I imagine that the general tone of even a Dwarf's personality would be pretty much set by that point.

[littlemanpoet]

You recalcitrant Dwarf! Stubborn as your kind! In the face of unimpeachable evidence, no less. Stiffnecked miscreant. You're all alike. Well, not all. There is that one exception, Gimli Goldenhands.

[Kuruharan]

Obviously, we have a pointy-ear sympathizer among us.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Obviously, we have a pointy-ear sympathizer among us.

On the contrary. I can't even speak the langitch. I like my Dwarves irascible and stubborn. And I still have a hard time accepting pointy ears, if not that it has been proven beyond a doubt (grrrr).

[Kuruharan]

I like my Dwarves irascible and stubborn.

Then you're in luck!!! Well, except for the irascible part. I prefer opinionated.

Oh, and I'm not sure I'm really stubborn. Perhaps a little set in my ways.