Why care if the teeth don't lock?

Post by **Galin** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:42 pm

By raising the Prometheus example, are we meant to compare, say Qenta Noldorinwa with the Later Quenta Silmarillion and consider them variants of the internal legendarium? Or compare two 'equally late' but conflicting histories of Celebrimbor perhaps -- both of which conflict with the implied history of the Second Edition to The Lord of the Rings -- and think of them as all internal?

That is, not all true (they can't be), but all 'internally' part of a body of existing texts awaiting translation.

I think Tolkien intended to mimick real world mythologies with inconsistency in some measure, but that is part of the art of world-building, itself an important part of Tolkien's art in general, in my opinion.

For example, I think most would agree that the two conflicting accounts of the Elessar jewel published in Unfinished Tales are meant to represent an intended inconsistency; or to put it another way: both ideas are intended as internal and not representative of one idea replacing the other externally...

... but would it be 'fair' to Tolkien as subcreator to add a third variant from another tradition, as if it's also an intended 'internal' inconsistency, simply because it exists in some text? And if one did simply accept Qenta Noldorinwa as a variant of Quenta Silmarillion as a variant of the Later Quenta Silmarillion, wouldn't that essentially be characterizing a number of things as internal inconsistencies, and in a sense shaping Tolkien's legendarium for him?

And Tolkien might have come to believe, at least at times, that a 'finished' (published) account of the Elder Days was beyond him in his later years, but I don't think he ever gave up truly desiring it.

Or am I missing the point

Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:52 pm

In my mind, the later Quenta supplants both the earlier Quenta Silmarillion and the Qenta Noldorinwa (at least to the point that Tolkien reached). More complicated is the juxtaposition of the later Quenta and the later Annals, some of which is contradictory where they cover the same territory. And, of course, it reaches a peak with the material on the Túrin saga, at least according to Christopher, although that material has not all been published.

Post by **Ethelwynn** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:16 am

Galin, I don't think you're missing the point here. I know I haven't read nearly as much of Tolkien's work as most of the people here, but looking at it from the outside I would wonder if all stories do not evolve as more information is discovered. We see this in history, when new findings contradict or question what is "known". Usually these oddities even out as the situation is looked at from different angles.

Both the worlds of mythology and Tolkien's fiction have the same problems as "real" history as far as inconsistencies go. I know I'm one of those annoying people that have to keep picking at the contradictions until they smooth out, but I've never yet found one that wouldn't given enough thought. Ask anyone luckless enough to draw me into a discussion of whether Elves or Dwarves are better swimmers.

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:19 am

I did find it strange that with their paddle like feet hobbits did so badly in the water.

Post by **Ethelwynn** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:03 am

That tells me that Hobbits don't have a lot of body fat. If they're muscle dense, they will sink like rocks no matter how large their feet. And yes, a person can be both plump and muscle dense if they're working like a lumberjack and don't have much fat in the body cavity. At least that's my thought on the matter.

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:07 pm

That thought did strike me but jarred with the hobbit love of plentiful food. Perhaps they could swim but just feared water.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:44 pm

Feared water, or just thought of swimming (and boating) as "outlandish" activities no proper hobbit would engage in.

Post by **vison** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:52 pm

Primula Baggins wrote:Feared water, or just thought of swimming (and boating) as "outlandish" activities no proper hobbit would engage in.

That's what Tolkien said, anyway.

Obviously it was true, look what happened to Frodo's ma and pa!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:00 pm

Ah, but everyone knows he pushed her in, and she pulled him in after her. Or was it the other way around? <waggles eyebrows>

Post by **Ethelwynn** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:55 pm

Although if Frodo's da was really as fat as the book says he should have floated like a cork.

Post by **Maria** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:05 pm

Maybe hobbit fat isn't the same as human fat. Maybe it's more dense than flesh and pulls them down like a rock.

Post by **Holbytla** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:29 pm

Most likely his pockets were stuffed with cakes and foodstuffs of sorts.

Post by **Galin** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:57 am

Hmm, well Hobbits don't have unusually large feet anyway (for their bodies)... I think the Hildebrandts at least might have contributed to this!

Both the worlds of mythology and Tolkien's fiction have the same problems as "real" history as far as inconsistencies go. I know I'm one of those annoying people that have to keep picking at the contradictions until they smooth out, but I've never yet found one that wouldn't given enough thought.

You didn't characterize what kind of contradictions you mean, but I guess you're likely referring to seeming (or arguable) inconsistencies in the Tolkien-published corpus -- which is very different from suggesting one treat both Qenta Noldorinwa and the Later Quenta Silmarillion as variants of the internal legendarium.

By doing the latter (not that you are of course), to my mind readers would be essentially creating inconsistencies where none truly exist, thus (in my opinion) 'undermining' part of Tolkien's art for him -- even if they can find a way to explain X and Y they are still including/creating 'something that needs explaining' where the world builder did not.

The trolls of Hobbit poetry might be a bit fanciful compared to those met in the narrative of Frodo's quest, but there's no doubt the poetry is 'internal' as in 'part of the Red Book', even if we can explain the seeming inconsistency easily enough... like...

... some trolls were nicer than those we meet upon the Quest

Post by **Ethelwynn** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:47 am

Actually, the trolls in the Hobbit remind me of some of my in-laws. No names here, obviously . . .

Mostly, the kind of contradictions that drive me crazy trying to figure them out are the small ones. For instance: when Bilbo gave up the Ring he aged fairly quickly, as in less than 20 years and he became very old and feeble. Gollum had lost the ring more than 50 years earlier, yet when we see him he is as spry as he was when he and Bilbo were playing at riddles. Why?

Oh well. That's the way my mind works.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:15 am

Could it be because he carried it for hundreds of years, so it had a stronger effect on him? Or maybe because he surrendered to its evil and Bilbo never did?

Post by **Ethelwynn** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:55 pm

And Sméagol was a nasty get from the beginning, even before he had the Ring. This might have something to do with it, but I can't make it fit in my mind. For example, if we're likening the influence of the Ring to a drug, it follows that a rotten, beligerant person becomes a rotten, beligerant drunk. Still, he will sober up and return to his own personality as quickly as a meek person who becomes a silly, outgoing drunk will.

The idea that Gollum had the Ring longer also doesn't fit becuase there is no sign of the Ring's influence wearing off. Sixty years after he lost it, he's still exactly the same. I would think that in all that time he'd at least have slowed down a bit, maybe developed some joint problems, etc. Nope, he's strong enough to follow the Fellowship through the Grand Tour of ME.

Could the Ring be radioactive, so that its influence would over prolonged use leave permanent changes? If so, then Bilbo might not have used it enough or had it close enough to him for long enough to affect his basic structure. Gollum and Frodo, who both carried it right against their skin, would show more affect more quickly.

For the record, this is pure guess. I know nothing about the affects of radiation excpet what I glean from teaching kids about the afteraffects of the Hiroshima bomb in WWII history.

Post by **vison** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:07 pm

Some things just have to be accepted, I guess. As axordil asks, "Why care if the teeth don't lock?"

However. The lust for revenge AND the ring kept Gollum going, and maybe it was just mind over matter. When dealing with magic, one must keep an open mind.

He HAD to keep on, so he did.

Post by **Galin** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:15 am

Ethelwynn wrote: Mostly, the kind of contradictions that drive me crazy trying to figure them out are the small ones.

OK, but that's not exactly what I meant though. I'm talking about readers arguably creating inconsistency by treating everything Tolkien merely set to paper (or a least large portions of it) as if it's all like the various versions of Primary World mythologies.

Is Trotter a Hobbit? Or is Strider a Dúnadan? Here we have a draft text compared to a published account, and no one is going to argue (I would guess) that the Red Book 'really' contains both ideas for some reason. Yet what if Tolkien never published The Lord of the Rings as he never published The Silmarillion? Would Trotter somehow become part of the internal (imaginative) reality of Middle-earth?

vision wrote: Some things just have to be accepted, I guess. As axordil asks, "Why care if the teeth don't lock?"

Some things do have to be accepted I agree; but I would add that Tolkien cared, and cared greatly, about the 'teeth'... not all the teeth need lock perfectly of course, or even at all, but that's part of his concern. That's part of the art of world-building: a smile might be more 'realistic' if it's not perfect, but shouldn't it be Tolkien who decides which teeth, and how many, will be slightly 'off'?

And I would argue that very many teeth should lock, and I think JRRT would agree -- I think that's why he cared a lot about unintended inconsistency, because this threw off the measure he was otherwise carefully considering... or was trying to carefully consider anyway.

Tolkien the dentist?

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:00 am

If you want an internally acceptable answer for why Bilbo aged and Sméagol didn't then I would make two observations. One is that did Bilbo age particularly until after the Ring had been destroyed? When Frodo recovers in Rivendell Bilbo still seems fairly spry and one notices the ageing only upon the return after the Ring's destruction.
And were there to be some difference between the two, consider that Bilbo surrendered the Ring and with only a couple of lapses was no longer owned by it. Sméagol never ever renounced the Ring in his mind. He was always in its power, always its servant..

Post by **Holbytla** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:04 am

Just a couple of observations.

The ring gave power according to the stature of the bearer, and Sméagol and Bilbo possessed quite different traits. I would guess from that there would also be different losses of effects.

Having the ring for 500 years as opposed to 50 years had to have a much different affect. I suspect that if Bilbo had had the ring for 500 years his aging would hardly be noticed, because he would have been nearly completely devoured as was Gollum. A couple of decades wouldn't matter much at that point.

The ring no longer possessed Bilbo. He gave it up freely. Frodo on the other hand took the path of Gollum and succumbed to the ring. Even though he held the ring for a shorter time than Bilbo, the effect of the ring would be different.