|
Hobbits are utterly fascinated by ancestry and yet no mention is ever made of the origins of Hobbiton's former Mayor, because it's specifically a role for the lower class, intended to organise the rabble into keeping the rich folks' estates nice and tidy. Tooks, Brandybucks, Bolgers and Bagginses don't work. They are gentlemen and ladies of leisure.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
The Tale of Years says that Elfstone puts the Mayor on his royal council for Arnor together with the Thain and the Master, but interestingly enough this doesn’t happen when Sam becomes Mayor or Meriadoc Master, but when Peregrin becomes Thain. There’s a good bit to unpack in the fourth age section of the Tale tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
Mayor is interesting. The meaning is all over the place over the years. One example also of a Latin word used by Tolkien.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 13:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Mayor is interesting. The meaning is all over the place over the years. One example also of a Latin word used by Tolkien. It’s true, and a little odd also to have a mayor in even nominal control of a shire. Anglo-Saxon shires would have been ruled by an ealdorman or a sheriff. But on the other hand those titles both imply some genuine executive power (Tolkien chooses the unusual form “shirriff” instead of the latter) whereas mayor, at least to an early 20th century Englishman, probably would have implied a dignified but not very significant office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Is ealdorman related to "earl"? I can see elderman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Seem to be different roots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Is ealdorman related to "earl"? I can see elderman. OE ealdorman + Danish jarl = eorl/earl. The ealdormanries of Anglo-Saxon England literally became the earldoms of Norman England. The original word also survives, bereft of original significance, as “alderman”.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
skasion posted:OE ealdorman + Danish jarl = eorl/earl. The ealdormanries of Anglo-Saxon England literally became the earldoms of Norman England. The original word also survives, bereft of original significance, as “alderman”. Possibility that Tolkien is merely translating "Ealdorman" into "Mayor" ? Seems unlikely. hrm. Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:The Thane definitely has all the real power in the Shire and is not appointed in any democratic way at all. font color sea posted:Here, from my own copy of the Fellowship: Yeah, the interesting thing is that the Mayor is actually the one with the hard power in the Shire: he commands the local police force and the lines of communication. The Thain only has "soft" power of ancestral reputation. We see this during the Scouring: Saruman has taken over control of the Shire by taking control of the Mayoralty, and it works, within limits, but is ultimately overthrown by the "soft" power of the Thain (another returning King, in a sense, or at least Princes, in the form of Merry and Pippin). It's fun to run wild with a Marxist reading of Tolkien but it's hard to make it work consistently because Tolkien's class-ism is complicated by his Christianity and a Marxist reading (generally) doesn't know how to handle the Christian elements. Yes, Sam is the ultimate servant -- but then, last shall be first? Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Possibility that Tolkien is merely translating "Ealdorman" into "Mayor" ? Maybe he was tempted to say "Ealdorhobbit" and backed away flailing his arms going nope nope nope
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Tolkien tends to err on the side of using “man”/“men” generically. Kenneth Grahame (iirc) sent him a letter complaining about that in The Hobbit
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah, though I'm eyeing that "Hobbitry-in-arms" up there
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
skasion posted:But on the other hand those titles both imply some genuine executive power (Tolkien chooses the unusual form “shirriff” instead of the latter) whereas mayor, at least to an early 20th century Englishman, probably would have implied a dignified but not very significant office. My good friend Mr Wikipedia has some plausible-sounding stuff about the history of English mayors quote:The office of mayor in most modern English and Welsh boroughs and towns did not in the 20th century entail any important administrative duties, and was generally regarded as an honour conferred for local distinction, long service on the Council, or for past services. The mayor was expected to devote much of his (or her) time to civic, ceremonial, and representational functions, and to preside over meetings for the advancement of the public welfare. Popularly-elected mayors as the political leader of a city have only been a thing since the year 2000 and they're still far from widespread; if you'd said "mayor" to anyone in England in the 20th century, they would have thought of a Lord Mayor or a local Mayor, someone in a silly robe and big gold chain, and who may very well have been found presiding at a banquet. The person with actual power is the leader of the borough or parish council. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jul 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
skasion posted:It’s true, and a little odd also to have a mayor in even nominal control of a shire. Anglo-Saxon shires would have been ruled by an ealdorman or a sheriff. But on the other hand those titles both imply some genuine executive power (Tolkien chooses the unusual form “shirriff” instead of the latter) whereas mayor, at least to an early 20th century Englishman, probably would have implied a dignified but not very significant office. Bear in mind that he’s translating from, um, Westron? and may well have decided to go for the Latin-derived title that fitted the position better from a contemporary view than the Saxon-derived one that’s developed different connotations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
I’m shocked personally that goons are using pseudoacademic language to ascribe their own views to a geek IP
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I’m shocked personally that goons are using pseudoacademic language to ascribe their own views to a geek IP ???????????????
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Lol forever at those who think of Tolkien’s books first as a “geek IP”
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Oh nm The Professor is a widely held mainstream genius who stands along Tolstoy and Meyer. Who hasn’t read his works?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
skasion posted:Lol forever at those who think of Tolkien’s books first as a “geek IP” I don’t think the idea is that improving things is wicked. Gimli plans to improve the glittering caves, Sam settles the unoccupied area west of the Shire, etc. Its that the Ring uses this understandable desire as a hook. Sam and Faramir are both aware that there IS an evil spell at work, which probably helped somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Tolkien was big irl on the idea that serving was good spiritually/psychologically for the servant (and bad for the one being served). In theory people at the top were supposed to get this benefit by serving god
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I’m shocked personally that goons are using pseudoacademic language to ascribe their own views to a geek IP I'm not shocked that people are reading and discussing their favourite books in this, the SA books subforum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I’m shocked personally that goons are using pseudoacademic language to ascribe their own views to a geek IP LotR has been mainstream literature in Britain literally since publication, but you carry right on trucking there, chief
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
literally considered one of the most influential English language books, but really its just like ready player one
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I'm not shocked that people are reading and discussing their favourite books in this, the SA books subforum. especially shocking in the thread specifically for those books
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Noted lightweight pulp author JRR Tolkien
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Honestly one Tolkien fact that I don't think gets enough focus is the fact that he redefined the face of a genre as a hobby, in the downtime from his real job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Well Well I mean fantasy was already an established genre by the time he published and nothing he did was out of the ordinary in terms of subject matter and ideas What was new and still unique was the poetic and linguistic sensibility he brought to his works as well as obviously the popularity. The popularity I think it largely attributable to his cinematic qualities which connected with 1960s readers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
I'll admit I'm not very well read on pre-Tolkien fantasy but what came after feels much more lotr-ish than things like the Wizard of Oz or the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I'll admit I'm not very well read on pre-Tolkien fantasy but what came after feels much more lotr-ish than things like the Wizard of Oz or the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Tolkien didn’t invent elves or orcs or trolls or magic rings. The superb quality of the lord of the rings is indeed unique tho. It’s a fantastically detailed and focused story with wondrous language and poetry and as I mentioned above cinema qualities. It hasn’t been equaled at all. GRRM May get sort of close but he lacks the poetry and language The hobbit is something different I don’t care for it much
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Yeah and that’s not surprising is it? The late 80s/early 90s were plagued with TMNT and Simpsons clones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Making an older more mythological type of story popular again counts as redefining in my book even if none of the elements are truly novel. I won't die on that hill if you point out some 1930s stories in an lotr-ish vein I've never heard of He did more or less invent our modern conception of elves if nothing else though. Older depictions are more like Keebler elves or Santa's elves typically
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
You are right re elves. Even his conception is flux from about 1925? Or so on
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
I admit, I'd like to see a high fantasy story that uses Elves As Little People again, instead of magical Vulcans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
His whole body of work is a decades-long odyssey from Tinker Bell pixies to WoW warriors. Every step he took he disavowed where he had been before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Hrm. I'm perfectly happy defending Tolkien as "literary", but not so much for any one specific trait of his writing, more the underlying theoretical structure. Tolkien came at language and writing and storytelling from an angle nobody else I'm aware of ever has: first inventing his own languages, plural, then inventing mythologies so that the languages could "live", then the LotR crystallizing out of that mass of previously extant myth. Most of the fantasy following Tolkien has basically been cargo cult imitation of that process; faking a live oak from bits of cloth and scraps of lumber, rather than growing the tree from the roots up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Cargo cult imitation ... kind of but he wasn’t the first to do any of that That’s my point. He’s just the best: not an originator
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Who are you thinking of that's earlier? E.R. Eddison is basically just writing down nonsense syllables; Dunsany did invent his own mythologies but didn't systematize in the same way, he's basically a short story writer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Grave injustice to Eddison there imo, his names may be a bunch of crap he made up aged six but the diction of his fantasy works is masterful (far more advanced than that of Dunsany) and is quite reminiscent of the approach Tolkien would go on to take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
skasion posted:Grave injustice to Eddison there imo, his names may be a bunch of crap he made up aged six but the diction of his fantasy works is masterful (far more advanced than that of Dunsany) and is quite reminiscent of the approach Tolkien would go on to take. In before me. He does have a ghastly tin ear, but if you can get past that he does much better relationships than Tolkien - his married couples, Prezmyra and Gro’s platonic friendship, whatsername who tries to vamp Gorice, and that’s just The Worm Ouroboros. You do have to get used to the mock-Elizabethan prose as well as the awful names, but it’s worth the effort. And I give him full marks for realizing, as so many post-Tolkien writers didn’t, that his own poetry should never be inflicted on the human eye and nicking bits from classic lit instead. (The heroes are horrible bros and probably weren’t intended to be, but that just means a modern reader can enjoy horrible things happening to them more. )
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
skasion posted:, his names may be a bunch of crap he made up aged six Runcible Cat posted:In before me. He does have a ghastly tin ear Runcible Cat posted:
Y'all aren't exactly giving him the hard sell here Eddison's a decent read-once and has a certain charm but even at his best he reads like the juvenilia of a different, better writer.  There are a lot of things you can criticize Tolkien for also of course but most of them are functions (in the sense of mathematically derived consequences) of his theoretical approach; his characters are a bit wooden because he's not trying to write modern characters, he's trying to write heroes from heroic sagas; his works have a white-dude and racial bias because he's working from a gestalt of Northern European mythology (many of which included racist elements, for ex. dwarves as jews). He knew what he was doing, start to finish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Eddison also knew what he was doing, dude was prodigiously well-read (few other fantasy authors have seamlessly integrated a quotation from a sermon inveighing against Oliver Cromwell into the climactic moment of their novel) and translated Egil’s saga from Norse. He could also write really, really well (better than Tolkien for beauty of language tbh, the only other fantasy author that rivals him in this regard is Peake). His archaic style is far above the level of modern writers like Moorcock who thought that all you needed was some thees and quothas to pass your poo poo off as fantasy. But he was not a linguist: his names are fanciful and evocative (and in some cases quite literally made up when he was six), far closer to William Morris or even the late medieval romance type stuff that inspired them both than to Tolkien. What Tolkien does through linguistics and a broader “subcreative” project, Eddison does through prose style. Tolkien’s book presents itself as an ancient lost text out of ages past that Tolkien has found and translated, Eddison’s present themselves as psychedelic/astral projection experiences of a really bad rear end super smart philosophical motherfucker British dude with a sweet estate and a hot wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 13:21
|
|