Tolkien and Tiny But Mature Children

[mark12_30]

TOLKIEN AND KIDS THAT ACT LIKE GROWNUPS

Hobbits are often compared to children; beardless, fond of simple things, uncomplicated. In Frodo and Bilbo (following this logic) we would find exceptionally bright, innocent, yet extremely sophisticated little children. And I do mean little: two to four feet tall is YOUNG by mannish standards.

In addition (see quote below) elf-children are immediately sophisticated, speaking and dancing at an extremely early age, and yet physically growing very slowly. Again: little, but adept, articulate and sophisticated.

What was Tolkien getting at?

--mark12_30

From HoME, J. R. R. Tolkien:
From OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS AMONG THE ELDAR PERTAINING TO MARRIAGE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO... Aelfwine's Preamble.


The Eldar grew in bodily form slower than Men, but in mind more swiftly. They learned to speak before they were one year old; and in the same time they learned to walk and to dance, for their wills came soon to the mastery of their bodies....
...For at the end of the third year mortal children began to outstrip the Elves, hastening on to a full stature while the Elves lingered in the first spring of childhood. Children of Men might reach their full height while Eldar of the same age were still in body like to mortals of no more than seven years. Not until the fiftieth year did the Eldar attain the stature and shape in which their lives would after- wards endure, and for some a hundred years would pass before they were full-grown.

...Yes, I searched; Not answered here:Elven Children
Not answered here: elf-Children
Nor here:children in Middle-Earth

[davem]

My own feeling is that Hobbits are small because they first appeared in a children's book, & Tolkien wanted a character who children could identify with. He was also influenced by Wyke-Smith's Marvellous Land of Snergs, as he admitted. His children loved the book. Snergs are incredibly similar to Hobbits - in size & even down to giving out presents on their own birthdays.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen,

I think you've raised a question that's not easy to answer. I've thought about this for some time in relation to hobbits (though not Elves), but can't seem to latch onto anything clearly.

There is, of course, the point that Davem raises: hobbits were imported from his earlier book, and this is where some of the childlike qualities were first seen. But can we take it further than this?

Aren't there really two factors you have to deal with in relation to this question? There is the fact that both Hobbits and Elves had a "longer" childhood than Man is normally used to, at least in our world. Then there is the separate reality that hobbits as a whole, even adult ones, are often portrayed in a childlike manner.

The long childhood of Elves and Hobbits could certainly be tied to the fact that they live longer lives -- in the case of the Elves much longer. I believe someone once did a calculation in the geneologies and deduced that the "average" Hobbit died at about 92 years of age. That would mean, however, that Hobbits were regarded as 'below their majority' (i.e. 33 years of age) for a full one-third of their life. I suppose one could say that most "children" in our society don't become adults until they finish college and get a job! If that is the case, given the fact that human lifespan isn't yet quite as long as hobbits, then humans are also children for nearly a third of their life!

Regarding the other part of the question, the depiction of even adult hobbits as childlike beings.....I always felt this tied in with one of Tolkien's central themes: the ennoblement of the small and simple, and the impact that such beings may have on the way the wheels of the world turn:

But as the earliest Tales are seen through Elvish eyes, as it were, this last great Tale, coming down from myth and legend to the earth, is mainly seen through the eyes of Hobbits: it thus becomes in fact anthropocentric. But through Hobbits, not Men so-called because the last tale is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, forgotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole ...is the obvious one that without the high and noble, the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.

I read the Hobbit's childlike nature as part of this equation: the simple, forgotten ones who come out of nowhere to help determine the course of things.

How this ties into the question of Elf-children, I'm not sure!

It is interesting to note that the one group of people who put great emphasis on Tolkien's "childlike" characters were precisely the critics who hated the books the most! We've had other threads where this was discussed. These critics complained LotR was a school boy story with androgynous characters. Those folk who like the book generally don't discuss what it means to have lengthened childhood, or childlike characters, although perhaps they should.

The other obvious question then is whether Tolkien was trying to make a comment on the nature of Man by portraying Hobbits and Elves in this manner. It's clear from the Letters that Tolkien saw Hobbits, Elves, etc. as exemplifying different aspects of Man. Here is one example...

Of course in reality this only means that my 'elves' are only a representation of an apprehension of a part of human nature, but that is not the legendary mode of talking.

So perhaps we can somehow extrapolate that Tolkien was trying to tell us something about ourselves by portraying his chracters in this way.

Have to run to work, but will mull this over.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:15 PM January 29, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Finwe]

I also think one important theme in Tolkien's works is never to underestimate the underdog. Everyone underestimates the Hobbits because of their size, and they have to see that brave race go through some kind of conflict before realizing that hey, these guys can kick some butt! I think that Tolkien was trying to tell us that we shouldn't make judgments based on a person's physical appearance (Strider, Frodo, etc.) because appearances are very misleading. At one end of the spectrum, a Hobbit that looks old may be rather simple-minded, and an Elf that looks very young may be one of the wisest people of all. We never can tell about a person based on their physical characteristics.

[Lyta_Underhill]

They learned to speak before they were one year old; and in the same time they learned to walk and to dance, for their wills came soon to the mastery of their bodies....

This sounds like the description of beings who are so ruled by the spiritual, noncorporeal aspect (fea, in Tolkien's mythology) that they and their bodies are not in the synchronous development seen in Men, nor even in Hobbits, although, in Hobbits, I always got the sense that their minds outstripped their bodies as well, for their bodies could not develop to full mannish stature. Thus, I get the idea that simplicity of outlook may have to do with this slower development and less focus on the immediacy of death.

Also, there are aspects of childhood that are quickly lost by Men that are retained by both Hobbits and Elves. For Hobbits, for many years, their realm is protected unbeknownst to them by the Dunedain, so they, in fact, lead lives of false autonomy, carrying on in daily life without the large threats from without, much like children at play, although the capability is clearly there for them to protect their own realm. It is interesting, though, that they must be rescued at the end, once the protection has been lost and ruffians have entered and taken advantage of their inexperience with such matters. In effect, the Hobbits of the Shire are like children playing at being adults, and I, for one, envy their position at times, although, I also see the need for uprisings like the Scouring and the initiative and leadership shown by the four Fellowship Hobbits upon their return to the Shire.

Still thinking about the Elvish aspect. I suppose this was a bit of a short ramble. I hope there was a good point in there! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Lyta (trying to master the never-ending sentence...) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Cibbwin]

Something in reply to Child of the 7th age's post: What about humans who do NOT attend college, but after High School, find a job and live their life? What about those who don't finish High School, but live to be 70? Are they still children?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Cibbwin, Good points!

I was actually saying that half tongue in cheek....to try and stretch out human 'childhood' to the greatest extent possible and see if we could 'equal' the hobbit record of 1/3 of life spent under age. It is true that some 'kids' are financially dependent on their parents for an extended period of time, sometimes because they are in school, or sometimes because their first job doesn't pay them a decent enough wage. Another big divider is marriage -- some folk stay single for a long time, and others get married right out of high school. Others prefer to remain single forever. And then there's the drinking or voting age. There are a thousand different measures of "adulthood." We can't put a definite age on becoming an adult such as the hobbits did, unless you simply want to use the 'legal' age of 18 or 21.

But I honestly don't believe that most of us think of a 20-year old, whether in school or working, as a "child". The other reality is that in our society, there is intense peer pressure to grow up quickly, at least in a social sense. And frequently, taking time out for adventure or self exploration (things that don't have economic value) is discouraged. Tolkien seemed to be saying that it was alright in hobbit society to take a while to find your niche in life, to lose yourself in the present without worrying about the future. Hobbits weren't wild or far travelling so perhaps most of the young ones just enjoyed themselves in the company of friends.

That is a nice idea. It's also very different than historical reality. In ancient and medieval times, in agrarian society, there was little real sense of childhood. Everyone had to work as hard as they could from day one so the family would have enough to eat. So perhaps the hobbit extended childhood is a little piece of idealized "luxury" that even in our day and age we haven't been willing or able to "afford"? And to Tolkien who was rudely jerked out of real 'childhood' by the death of his mother, leaving him an orphan, the period of 33 years when a hobbit could "have fun" might have looked enticing in retrospect!

I am one of the more ancient members of the forum -- definitely the post-33 crowd--so am only marginally qualified to address this in any way! Perhaps some posters in their teens or twenties can give their opinion on how alike or different they see their own experience of 'childhood versus adulthood' in comparison with the hobbits --- perhaps taking Pippin's behavior as a guide and tying it into the book that way.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 8:29 PM January 29, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Laitoste]

Well, Child of the 7th Age wanted someone in their teens to post, so here I am. I'm sixteen, and am definitely feeling pressure to grow up! I waited nearly the whole year until my learner's permit expired to get my driver's license, and I still don't drive to school, even though people think I'm weird because of it. I tend to make excuses, like I'm not supposed to drive in snow, etc. (The bus comes right past my house! Why would I waste gas and ruin the environment when it's easier to take the stupid bus?) I don't have a job, yet, but my parents think I need to earn some money, and are making me pay for half of a school trip to Mexico this summer. Most of my friends drive to school, have jobs, whatever. Plus there's the eternal pressure to plan out the rest of your life, down to the second, because everyone knows that if you don't, you'll be a horrible failure. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] I don't have time to have fun anymore! I'm very jealous of the hobbits.

However, there's a flip side. I don't want to appear too childish or immature. A lot of people at my school think that having fun equals ignoring homework, ignoring teachers, getting in trouble, being immature, whatever. These people haven't grown up enough, and don't know how to behave. Every Parent-Teacher conference my history teacher complains about this because he attracts these people (he's the easiest history teacher, or so I've heard. I love his classes, though. I learn a lot.).

There's a fine balance between growing up too fast and not growing up fast enough. I'd love to have more time to just go do fun stuff, or play with my old toys (I had some pretty cool ones, and I don't think that I appreciated them enough. WAH!), to not worry about college or my future life. That's just my opinion. I'm sure someone my age has a different one that I'd love to hear.

[Cibbwin]

I'm sixteen, too, and while I have fun, and enjoy my childhood, I cannot wait to be out on my own.

I grew up in a hard-working Hungarian immigrant family, we had enough money to have good food, warm clothes, and some leisure. However, I'm the youngest of four. Not only that, but the next sibling above me is 28. So, naturally, I'm pretty spoiled.

Personally, I am treated as the baby, and I don't blame them, I AM young and naive, and look forward to maturing. But acting like my opinions, etc. aren't valid annoys me to no end.

My parents will probably move as soon as I'm eighteen, and I couldn't be happier. I'll rent an apartment with my best friend, attend the community college in my town, have a job and a car.

Dude, I love playing with my stuffed animals! I still have this bunny with overalls and a hat I got when I was five, but I lost the hat. I think maybe I ate it. :P

There IS a fine line, I agree. Don't think I'm some superior acting arrogant person, I really enjoy hanging out and talking to other teenagers. I just can't wait until I'm on my own. Life, to me, is a learning experience.

Child of the Seventh age, I must confess, I didn't expect the responce you gave me. I was mainly saying that from a personal point of view, because although I will attend community college, I have no idea when I'll actually earn a degree, if I will at all.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Laitoste,

There's a fine balance between growing up too fast and not growing up fast enough.

As a mom and former teacher, I can definitely appreciate what you're saying here. Life often feels like a balancing act, and it's not easy.

I do think it's fair to say that, historically, Man has never had a childhood that is as long and indulgent as that postulated by Tolkien for hobbits. In our society, most thirty-year olds are regarded as adults.

So why did Tolkien suggest a prolonged 'childhood/adolesence' that occupied about one-third of a hobbit's life?

1. Was this simply a leftover from The Hobbit, an element of a childlike character from a children's book--a character that could trace its lineage back to the Snergs (as Davem said)?

Perhaps this was merely a way to underline the fact that, at heart, the Hobbits are a 'simple' people. And this simplicity (both the good and bad side) is reflected in the fact that they are eternally childlike.

2. Was it a kind of wish fulfillment? Who wouldn't like to be young for an extended period of time? The hobbits are just the lucky ones who manage to achieve a childhood/adolescence that extends for over thirty years. I definitely get a sense of this when I read about the Tooks! They seem to have a life-long childhood that made them totally unpredictable at times, but a lot of fun to be with.

3. Or was Tolkien saying that there is something special about children, and that there are things in humans that can't be released unless we carry around some of that childhood/adolescence in us?

Incidentally, there are a lot of statements in the Letters that suggest Tolkien was more of a realist than a romantic when it came to children. But while not idealizing children, I do think he felt that they had two advantages: they had tremendous energy and they were good observers. And the Hobbits in LotR definitely need these characteristics, especially since it is through their eyes that we understand most of the storyline.

What about the strange Hobbits in the Took line who ran off to Sea every now and then or who, like Bilbo, loved to travel about? Are these instance of Hobbits who have hung on to their childlike nature and it impels them to do such things? Perhaps, without that streak of childishness, life in the Shire (or in our own world) could become a bit bland.

In Unfinished Tales, Gandalf kind of hints at this. He says that Bilbo used to be a lively sort when he was a tweener. He loved tales, espcially about Elves. Now, as he approached the middle-years (almost 50), he'd gotten too staid and predictable and concerned about what his neighbors said. Gandalf seemed to think it was part of his job to shake Bilbo out of that complacency.

The key to some of this may lay in The Hobbit rather than the LotR. On one level, The Hobbit is a tale of Bilbo's growth and development. In fact, people have written several books on that, describing The Hobbit as Bilbo's 'journey to maturation'.

On a certain level, that is true. Bilbo faces challenges and evolves from the timid fellow who doesn't want to leave his house to someone who gains courage. There is the physical courage of creeping down the tunnel to go to Smaug and the mental courage that impels him to try and make peace and right the wrongs of the Arkenstone. The latter eventually earns him the title of Elf-friend.

But, ironically, you could also argue that, as the tale progresses, Bilbo loses some of the traditional trappings of an adult, and goes back to the simpler interests of his youth. He is less concerned about losing his pocket handkerchief (as he was at the beginning) or worrying about whether the Dwarves are messing up his burrow or what his neighbors might say about his long absence. He learns to enjoy travelling on the road; he again remembers his love of Elves and tales. Plus, after his return to the Shire, whom does Bilbo befriend? Young hobbits like Frodo whom he eventually adopted as a tweener, and later Samwise whom he teaches how to read. He seems to have studiously avoided friends his own age! Then again, who would want to be friends with Lobelia?

So is Bilbo more or less of a child when he finishes his journey? I guess that depends on how you define "child" and "childhood"..... But I think you might be able to find enough evidence to write a different book entitled Bilbo Recaptures his Childhood with Gandalf's Help.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 11:50 AM January 30, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[davem]

There is an interesting (possibly) event in Lost Road. In Numenor, Elendil is watching his son, Herendil, swimming. He is described as a 'boy' & a 'Lad', but we are told he is 48 at the time. Christopher Tolkien comments:

[QUOTE] 'It can only be concluded that at this time the longevity of the Numenoreans implied that they grew & aged at a different rate from other men, & were not fully adult until about 50 years old'.[QUOTE]

He seems to have rejected this concept, or just retained it for the Elves.

Of course, there are two 'archtypes' whicch run through the whole Legendarium, the 'Father' & the 'Son'. Elendil & Herendil, Tuor & Earendel, Alwin & Oswin, & of course, Bilbo & Frodo. The 'Father' leaves, often to go into the West, or live with the Elves, & the 'son' eventually follows in search of him. Possible links with Tolkien's loss of his own father. Flieger even points to Smith of Wooton Major in this regard. His Grandfather disappears finally, after returning with the Star, & Smith uses this Star as a way into Faery. So, what, the 'Father' is lost, 'away with the Fairies', & the 'Son' is driven to seek him out, journeying to meet the Elves himself, & also become an 'Elf-friend'? So, the 'children' follow the adults into the 'wide world', driven by grief over their loss, & they return with knowledge of the Elves, which they can pass on to others, before they make their own final journey, to be sought for, followed, by their own 'children'? This supplies a constant inpiration for each generation to enter Faery, & maintain the links between the two worlds, so the contact can never be lost?

Sorry, I'm fumbling here, & I'm not sure any of this is relevant to this thread. [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

[The Saucepan Man]

Only time for one or two scattered ideas.

So, what, the 'Father' is lost, 'away with the Fairies', & the 'Son' is driven to seek him out, journeying to meet the Elves himself, & also become an 'Elf-friend'?

And yet, in The Cottage of Lost Play, it is Mannish children, rather than the adults, who are permitted to enter Faerie (Tol Eressea) and play in the Cottage.

The "child-like" quality of Hobbits is also reinforced by the fact that none of them have beards. The same applies to Elves (with the exception of Cirdan, but he was one of the oldest). This contrasts with many of the Men that we meet (particularly in Rohan, a "harsher" environment than most in ME where the women-folk are trained to fight and children presumably have to grow up quickly) and, of course, Dwarves (although Dwarves had extended longetivity too and therefore, presumably, an extended childhood).

Sorry. No conclusions today. just thoughts. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

The "child-like" quality of Hobbits is also reinforced by the fact that none of them have beards.

Saucepan Man,

Just a tiny comment. The one exception to this is the Stoors. According to Tolkien, they occasionally grew hair on their faces. This is in reference to those hobbits who lived in the Eastfarthing:

...But they were well known to be Stoors in a large part of their blood, as indeed was shown by the down that many grew on their chin.

However, I have never seen an artist depict a hobbit that way!

Another characteristic of hobbits that seems very childlike are the bare feet. I have an image of the earlier days of our own country when farm children went barefoot for most of the summer. (Again, the only exception here are the Stoors who sometimes wore dwarf-boots in muddy weather.)

[The Saucepan Man]

Good point, Child. I had overlooked that point.

Is there anything else I wonder that makes Stoors seem less "child-like" than other varieties of Hobbit? And if so, are there any factors which might account for them being less so?

Hmm, I wonder whether they have any Dwarvish blood in their ancestry.

[Imladris]

So why did Tolkien suggest a prolonged 'childhood/adolesence' that occupied about one-third of a hobbit's life?

As has been said before, maybe Tolkien thought that children grew up too fast? Think of it this way: he grew up during two world wars or so (right?) and children would grow up fast in those kind of times. Also, he lot his dad at a young age and that would certainly have a maturing effect. Maybe he lamented the fact that children couldn't just be children, that they couldn't just play, or live life in innocense.

As a teenager, I definitely understand this fact especially in today. Children are exposed to things that were not exposed to our grandparents when they were the same age.

I think that Child of the 7th Age was right when she said:

But, ironically, you could also argue that, as the tale progresses, Bilbo loses some of the traditional trappings of an adult, and goes back to the simpler interests of his youth. He is less concerned about losing his pocket handkerchief (as he was at the beginning) or worrying about whether the Dwarves are messing up his burrow or what his neighbors might say about his long absence. He learns to enjoy travelling on the road; he again remembers his love of Elves and tales. Plus, after his return to the Shire, whom does Bilbo befriend? Young hobbits like Frodo whom he eventually adopted as a tweener, and later Samwise whom he teaches how to read. He seems to have studiously avoided friends his own age! Then again, who would want to be friends with Lobelia?

It seems to me that when children grow up into adults, a good deal of them loose their sense of "fun" and adventure. Maybe Tolkien was saddened by this (I know I am) and so wrote the Hobbits in this childish state. For a third of their lives they have fun and live life happily. Heck, even the older hobbits were childish in a way: they could eat whatever they wanted without worrying about loosing a figure, they drank ale regularly....even then they were children.

As for Gandalf helping Bilbo refind his childhood, it's plausible. Maybe after their tweens, hobbits began to grow up slowly if you see what I mean...or they just became too conscerned with worldy wealth instead of the wealth of the imagination...

But these are just my thoughts.

[Guinevere]

Well, concerning the smallness of the Hobbits I found the following note in one of Tolkien's letters (#131)

They are made small (little more than half human stature, but dwindling as the years pass) partly to exhibit the pettiness of man, plain unimaginative parochial man (....) and mostly to show up, in creatures of very small physical power, the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men "at a pinch".

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:14 PM January 30, 2004: Message edited by: Guinevere ]

[lathspell]

Adolescence is only by law gained at a certain age. To act like an adult is ofcourse quite a different thing. As Laitoste pointed in a very good way:

There's a fine balance between growing up too fast and not growing up fast enough.

The 'weights' that make this balance either go slightly to 'too fast' or 'too slow' are the events that happen to you in life and, I believe, in a way also IQ matters. Yet the events seem to play the main part in all this. Two examples of this are a friend of mine and (not to be haughty or anything) myself.
1. My friend (and I think some here still know him as Savalas) was always energetic, allert, keen and in a way 'childish', yet since somewhat more than a year someone close to him is terminally ill, and since this happened he has grown an 'adult' extremely fast.
2. I, myself, have experienced too much in my life and at a young age (death's, seeing someone die, abuse (of which I won't tell further over a forum!)). This all, in a later stadium when you begin to notice the extravagancy of these things, making me older in person than I should be. Now I'm 19 and I'm the first Dutch person ever under the age of 21 to work as security in one of the Dutch ministries, because 'I appear older'. (Again: I say this for the topic. Please don't take me as an arrogant 19-year-old.)
Another important point is when these events happen in life, which (if for reaching adolescence) should be in the Time when you are aware that you are growing up. That would be from about first schoolyear (age 4) until you have reached adolescence by life-experience (older age).
The point I'm trying to make here is that it matters how you live your life and what experiences and events happened in it when determining someones personality on aspects of 'adulty'.

Children and childish manners seem to have played a great part in Tolkien's books (and maybe also in Tolkien's life). There are many examples possible in which Tolkien chose children to do deliberate things, and a couple are already mentioned in posts before me, like: The Cottage of Lost Play from the Lost Tales... The Twenty-four Feast from Smith of Wootton Major... and the Garden of the Dark Side of the Moon in Roverandom. Why this is so I can not guess, for I haven't lived in close contact to Tolkien of one of his sons, but children certainly seem to have some part in his stories and they are small but, if interested, important.
The longer childhood of Hobbits are one of these examples as well, but maybe this one is explainable. The Hobbit-society was very different to the one we live in. We, and already in Tolkien's time, live in times where everyone needs to produce and consume and you know there's always a war going on somewhere. In opposite to this the Hobbits live in a World where they have time to do things as they wish and to arrange things and meet people at times set by them. And also very convenient is that they were for the greater part unaware what happened beyond their borders, most of them never even went out of the Shire. Therefore they were only bothered with the goings on in their own little country, which was almost always peaceful and jolly. This conludes in the fact that they experienced little of the events I mentioned above (not meaning they didn't happen ofcourse) and thus had a longer average childhood.
Imladris makes a point I didn't think of myself but want to back-up immediately:

he grew up during two world wars or so (right?) and children would grow up fast in those kind of times.

Tolkien might have 'created' the Shire in a way of showing his feelings about the Wars, especially the WWI, because the Hobbit was written or finished in that time. Maybe he used the Shire as an outlet of his feelings.

*** I could not find a date of time when Gollum's people settled near the Gladden Fields. If someone knows this, please tell, for it will determine if the next piece of text can possibly be true. As I did not find it I took it for a possibility ***

The smallness and childishness of Hobbits can also be explained evolutionary. Since they were of old a people that lives near the Gladden Fields as Gandalf says in FotR - the Shadow of the Past, they would 'inherit' the appearances and features of those people (of which Gollum was one).
These people live near the Gladden Fields, which is a very large swamplike area. This would mean that, quite likely, the greater part of their food supply would be 'fish' (also in accordance of Gollum's liking for it even before going after Frodo). A fanatic fisherman knows that fish get scared away if you make too much racket or if you lean over the riverbank. The 'Ancestors' would be depending on their fishing capabilities and become stealthy and masters of silency. Nature, however, has developed 'evolution'. This would mean that over a very long time the 'Ancestors' would be growing to the appearances and features they needed there, meaning they would become naturals in making no noise at all and becoming shorter.
Fish is considered healthy by many people and scientists. This, and the fact that they very likely had no natural enemies (being at the top of the foodchain just as humans) would mean that they required longer lifes, because of their healthy food and environment. When passed over the Mountains and settled in the Shire they had no enemies whatsoever (except in the Fell Winter and the Battle of Greenfields) and were almost completely shut out from the World Outside, giving them (as said above) less important experiences making someone an adult and thus gaining a longer childhood. And probably that because of this older Hobbits remembered how to be young for a long time as well.

Gandalf made his choice of 'burglar' very delibirate, because Bilbo was always 'an adventurous lad'. Hobbit standards got a hold of him though and he became 'an adult' thinking about his prestige towards his neighbours and such things. After his journey with Gandalf and the Dwarves (which is an event that changes life and at younger age makes you an adult) made him look at life differently, changing his priorities and he became 'weird', according to the other Hobbits except possibly the Tooks. The extraordinary thing is that when Bilbo became 'weird' he was again as if he was young, only a good deal wiser.
But here again I do not know why it is that Tolkien especially chose childish manners.

And: Mark12_30... great topic!

greetings to all,
lathspell

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I should like to point out that Tolkien did not grow up during either of the world wars. He was born in 1892 and went to the First War on graduating from Oxford, by which time he was 22 years of age. He wrote The Hobbit during the mid-1930s, a period long after the end of the First World War and before the beginnings of the crisis that resulted in the second.

As regards children, I think that it's at best a chimeric idea that hobbits are in any way intended to represent them. Their child-like stature seems to derive from two things: there is the simple fact that Tolkien conceived of them as a diminutive people, apt to move silently and hide easily (the better to foster belief in his audience that they might still exist), and was constrained in his later writings by his earlier descriptions. This does, however, make available the convenient device of using them to represent small people, overwhelmed by a world of mythic heroes that to them is literally built on a huge scale, and yet at the same time possessing the power to influence that world for the better. Their lack of beards seems to me a side issue. Most Elves do not grow beards either, and a large proportion of the Men are also clean shaven, except the old and venerable. Certainly he seems to associate long beards with age and wisdom when he is not putting them on Dwarves, but when we are considering characters such as Círdan or Gandalf, age is obviously something more than simple adulthood. Frodo and Bilbo are both well into their fifties when they go adventuring, so I think it unlikely that there is any special intent to produce childlike heroes. As for the simple outlook and way of life of the Shire, I think that this is more a somewhat idealised portrait of late-Victorian rural life in England than a portrayal of childhood. We must certainly be careful not to judge the hobbits by their size: they are indeed the ubiquitous 'little people', but as Tolkien himself once wrote (in the guise of Elrond): "Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere."

What Bilbo really loses during the course of The Hobbit is his bourgeois pomposity and complacency. Although these are more adult qualities, they are scarcely desirable ones, and I'm sure that Tolkien intended to tell us that to lose one's sense of adventure, fun or wonder is neither required in order to become adult nor a sign of adulthood. There are enough quack psychologists telling people to 'get in touch with their inner child' for it to be a common enough concept, but that does not mean to turn one's back on adult responsibilities or concerns. Rather I think that Tolkien tells us that it is easier to face those responsibilities if we can remember to enjoy life as well. One need not be a child to grasp that simple idea.

[ 10:06 AM January 31, 2004: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[lathspell]

He wrote The Hobbit during the mid-1930s

Actually you're wrong there, SoAR. Christopher Tolkien mentions in the little text afore of letter 9 in the Letters that 'Tolkien wrote the greater part of the Hobbit during his first seven years as Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford.' Relate this to the other mentioning of Christopher Tolkien in the text at Letter 7: that Tolkien became Professor at Oxford in 1925, and we can tell that Tolkien began writing the Hobbit in the 1920s. Idea's for books however take time to take shapes, thus it might well have been that Tolkien had or gained the idea for The Hobbit, or Hobbits in general, during or little after WWI.

I spoke to someone about the 'children thing' and he replied to my question of 'why so much children things?': 'Well, he wrote children's books and it might well be possible that therefore he took children so as the readers of his books could identify themselves with the characters.' I thought he had a point.

greetings,
lathspell

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

That'll teach me to check my facts before I post. 1925 was still well after the First War, though; and Tolkien himself has described how he began The Hobbit by writing the first sentence without being entirely sure what it was that he was writing about. I agree that a lot of the childlike qualities in this earlier work are probably intended to engage with his intended audience, but I still don't see what this has to do with the world wars. If anything, we should look to the Battle of Five Armies to see how war coloured his writing. He was himself invalided home after a reasonably short stay at the front, and it might have been very easy to imagine that he had been knocked out for the whole battle and simply woken up for the aftermath. I think it particularly significant that the battle is so very nearly fought between those who are not rightly enemies and for money. Only thanks to the quick thinking of Bilbo does it gain a more heroic quality and result in peace.

I still think that the smallness of hobbits is irrelevant. There has been a strong element of the diminutive in more or less recent fairy-stories; and although Tolkien moved away from this he was still influenced by it in his earlier writing. It could be that the small size of hobbits is the last gasp of his support for this device, already rejected in the Silmarillion material.

As for the long childhoods of Elves and Númenoreans, it seems to me only logical that longer-lived races would have longer childhoods. If one has centuries to live, what are a few more years in growing up? Also one's elders, being possibly hundreds rather than just tens of years older, might well think of fifty as a callow age. Legolas refers to his companions in the Fellowship as 'children', because he was already old when even the eldest of them was born. It all comes down to perspective in the end.

[lathspell]

and Tolkien himself has described how he began The Hobbit by writing the first sentence without being entirely sure what it was that he was writing about.

I stand corrected, and now I agree with you that it seems that the WW's had nothing to do with the Hobbit, though, I believe, not unthinkable.

As for the 'longer childhood', you said about the same thing as I did in my first post though in other words.
We seem to have reached agreement on matters! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I would take my hat of and bow to you, SoAD, if only I had a hat. I just bow!
lathspell

[Lalaith]

A propos of all this, I always loved the description of Merry and Pippin, escaping from the Orcs in Fangorn wood:

little furtive figures that in the dim light looked like elf-children
in the deeps of time peering out of the Wild Wood in wonder at their first Dawn.

I agree with a lot of Squatter's points, I don't think that hobbits are in general like children. But there are certain childlike things about them - their affectionate natures, for example, the way that they embrace and kiss each other without feeling self-conscious.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

And naturally I to you.

For the sake of completeness, here's the extract from letter #163 (to W.H. Auden), in which Tolkien describes the beginning of his first published story:

All I remember about the start of The Hobbit is sitting correcting School Certificate papers in the everlasting weariness of that annual task forced on impecunious academics with children. On a blank leaf I scrawled: 'In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.' I did not and do not know why. I did nothing about it, for a long time, and for some years I got no further than the production of Thror's map. But it became The Hobbit in the early 1930s, and was eventually published not because of my own children's enthusiasm (though they liked it well enough*), but because I lent it to the then Rev. Mother of Cherwell Edge when she had flu, and it was seen by a former student who was at that time in the office of Allen and Unwin.

[He continues in a footnote]

*Not any better I think than The Marvellous Land of Snergs, Wyke-Smith, Ernest Benn 1927. Seing the date, I should say that this was probably an unconscious source-book! for the hobbits, not of anything else.

It would appear that my dating is not as far out as I had imagined, since C.S. Lewis read an incomplete text in late 1932. It seems that the book was long in the making.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 6:02 PM February 01, 2004: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]